Position Paper Upcycled Food & Ingredients

Why should we grow the market for upcycled food & ingredients

As the world’s population grows, so do concerns about how to feed it. Worries about the rise of global food insecurity, and the environmental, economic and societal toll of wasteful supply chains have led to increased efforts to make the food industry more sustainable. One practice that can help accelerate the shift towards more sustainable food production, while also spurring innovation, industry collaboration and opening new avenues of business, is upcycling.

At its core, upcycling food is about reducing food loss and waste by repurposing materials that would otherwise be discarded or put toward non-food usage into new food products. Upcycling aligns with many countries’ goals of improving food security, reducing waste and minimising climate impact. For companies, it aligns with corporate sustainability directives and objectives like supply chain diversification. Several frontrunners are already showing the benefits of upcycling, finding ways to turn things like vegetable scraps into higher-value and often healthier products like nutritional snacks – boosting both sustainability and business. However, there are a lot of barriers that need to be overcome to advance upcycling. Our mission: take upcycled food from niche to normal.

This paper, an initiative of Foodvalley and its partners in the Upcycling Community, looks at how the transition towards using more side streams in food production can be advanced from scientific, regulatory and industry points of view. It brings together partners from across the food industry, as well as scientific institutes, governments, market research agencies and other organisations to define what upcycling is, why we need to develop it, how this can be done, and how to best communicate the impact of this burgeoning market.

From a food security perspective, side streams of the agrifood sector that have (or potentially have) food-grade quality should always be reintegrated into the food chain. But from a circular economy point of view, these side streams can also end up in various non-food markets. In this paper we focus on upcycling to make products fit for human consumption.

The ultimate goal of this paper and its authors is to enlighten, instruct and inspire changemakers to evolve the market for upcycled food and ingredients. By scaling this market, it is our belief that we can chart a course towards a more sustainable food industry.

According to figures recently released by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), food loss and waste accounts for about 4.4 gigatonnes of greenhouse gas emissions per year. To put this in perspective, if food loss and waste were its own country, it would be the world’s third-largest emitter of planet-warming greenhouse gases —surpassed only by China and the United States.

Food loss and waste, and the resulting negative impacts on the environment, come from a variety of sources. Below, we break down some of the main avenues through which the food industry generates food loss and waste.

Looking at the different stage of production and processing in the agrifood chain, this can result in different types of losses:

Agricultural production:

• Plant-Based: losses due to mechanical damage and/or spillage during harvesting operations (e.g. threshing or fruit picking), crops sorted out post-harvest, etc. 
  > Associated environmental impact: On-farm agriculture emissions—like energy use and fertilizer emissions–unnecessary use of water, pollution caused by use of pesticides and fertilizers and loss of biodiversity. 

• Animal-Based: In the rearing of bovine, pork and poultry meat, losses refer to animal deaths during breeding. For fish, losses refer to fish that are discarded during fishing. In dairy production, losses refer to decreased milk production due to dairy cow sickness (e.g. mastitis). 
  > Associated environmental impact: On-farm agriculture emissions—including from the digestive systems of cows, manure from livestock, energy use, fertilizer emissions, unnecessary use of water, pollution and loss of biodiversity. 

Post-harvest and post-rearing and growing processing, handling and storage:

• Plant-Based: including losses due to spillage and degradation during handling, storage and transportation between farm and distribution. 
  > Associated environmental impact: the use of fuels and the production of electricity and heat, unnecessary use of water and possible pollution as a result of processing raw materials that are ultimately lost. 
  
  
• Animal-Based: losses refer to death during transport to slaughter and condemnation at slaughterhouse. For fish, losses refer to spillage and degradation during icing, packaging, storage and transportation after landing. For milk, losses refer to spillage and degradation during transportation between farm and distribution.  
  
  
• Processing: for bovine, pork and poultry meat, losses refer to trimming spillage during slaughtering and additional industrial processing, e.g. sausage production. For fish, losses refer to industrial processing such as canning or smoking. For milk, losses refer to spillage during industrial milk treatment (e.g. pasteurization) and milk processing e.g., cheese and yoghurt. 
  > Associated environmental impact for plant and animal based post-harvest and handling and storage processes: the use of water, fuels and the production of electricity and heat used to process, handle and store raw materials that are ultimately lost. 

Processing:

• Processing including losses due to spillage and degradation during industrial or domestic processing, e.g. juice production, canning and bread baking. Losses may occur when crops are sorted out if not suitable to process or during washing, peeling, slicing and boiling or during process interruptions and accidental spillage. 
  > Associated greenhouse gas emissions: the use of water, of fuels and the production of electricity and heat used to manufacture and process raw materials that are ultimately lost. 
  

Distribution:

• Distribution including losses and waste in the market system, e.g. at wholesale markets, supermarkets, retailers and wet markets. 
  > Associated environmental impact: the energy used and possible pollution caused by the transport, storage and cooking of food that is ultimately lost or wasted; 
  

Consumption:

• Consumption including losses and waste during consumption at the household level. 
  > Associated greenhouse gas emissions: the landfill emissions from decaying food. 
  

All possible losses:

• And overall for all possible losses in the value chain: the emissions from land use change and deforestation associated with producing food that is ultimately lost or wasted.¹ 
  
• We can also break down the percentages of raw materials and food that are lost or wasted in the value chain by type of commodity group.

Food loss and waste affects not only the climate, but also personal and national economics. The FAO calculates that food loss and waste costs the global economy around $940 billion a year.  This occurs more “near the fork” in developed regions and more “near the farm” in developing regions (FAO, 2011).  That is to say, wastage hits the most vulnerable the hardest. Reducing food loss and waste could help avoid these economic costs and reduce financial burdens, particularly in the parts of the world where it is most needed. In sub-Saharan Africa, one of the world’s most food-insecure regions, the World Bank estimates that a 1% reduction in post-harvest losses could lead to economic gains of $40 million each year. Of that $40 million, most of the benefits would go directly to the smallholder farmers who grow the food.²  

Tackling food loss and waste is a defined target within the internationally agreed Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). SDG Target 12.3 aims to halve per-capita food waste at both the retail and consumer levels by 2030, and reduce food losses along production and supply chains. In line with that, the European Commission has proposed that, by 2030, European Union member states cut food waste by 10% in processing and manufacturing, and by 30% per capita jointly at the retail and consumption levels, across the food service industry and households.

Companies also increasingly need to change how they do business and report on their sustainability policies, resource use and role in the circular economy due be Europe’s Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive. This legislation requires companies doing business in the EU to report on the environmental and social impact of their activities. Given that food production has a heavy environmental footprint, upcycling can offer companies a way to comply with CSRD requirements, while also opening up new avenues for growth. 

Legal requirements aside, it is also the societal responsibility of stakeholders in and around the agrifood value chain to make the most of the resources available to them. Together, we should aim to prevent avoidable food losses and upcycle what we can. (see chapter 3)

Upcycling can be a useful way to comply with sustainability objectives as it maximises the use of resources, raw materials and ingredients in the food industry. This concept of “total use” turns by-products and side streams of food processing that are difficult to prevent – like for example brewers spent grains –  into new iterations of food products. These can serve as alternatives to so-called “virgin sources” for raw materials for food production containing proteins, fibres, functional molecules and micro-nutrients.

Some examples of  side streams that we know have huge potential to be upcycled into food-grade materials because of their nutritional value, availability, volumes and the fact that they are difficult to avoid are:

Though some companies are already working on transforming side streams, more needs to be done to address the challenges they face when upcycling. These range from how to market upcycled products to the lack of regulatory frameworks for defining such products.

“At Duynie, our vision is to enable a circular agrifood system; where resources are used to their maximum potential. How? By upcycling side streams from the food, beverage, and biofuel industries to their highest and best use. Upcycling side streams from the food industry back into food perfectly fits our circular vision. A great example of how we are implementing this is the recent certification of our current pet food factory in Cuijk to ‘food grade’ status.”

Nicole Timmerman, Business Developer Circular at Duynie Group

Given that the field of upcycling is a new one, so too are the attributes of upcycled food and ingredients. These can be both positive and negative, such as ease of scaling, environmental impact, and taste & nutritional profile relative to conventional products. All these values lack agreed-upon definitions recognised by the market. This leaves upcycling vulnerable to the risk of greenwashing: the practice of exaggerating or misrepresenting the sustainable qualities of a product or service. It also makes it more difficult for companies to develop and market upcycled products, particularly with regards to health and safety.

Not having a common standard by which to measure the value and characteristics of upcycled food also makes it harder to make regulators and policymakers aware of how upcycling can help them meet broader sustainability goals^*.

_{*In 2015, 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) were adopted by all United Nations Member States. An important condition for affordable and healthy food for everyone, and thus zero hunger, is sustainable production and consumption. Therefore, two of these SDG’s specifically refer to food security: SDG 2.0; Zero Hunger, and SDG 12.0; Responsible Production and Consumption. This shows that moving towards a sustainable food system is a global priority.}

There is also little awareness of upcycling at the consumer level. Currently, the value of upcycled food is mostly appreciated by a niche segment of customers who specifically look for these sorts of products. If we want more consumers to buy upcycled products, more needs to be done to educate them about the benefits. Boosting such demand will help the market flourish and encourage more companies to invest time and resources in upcycling. 

Other challenges to scaling the market include securing a stable supply chain of food-grade side streams and upcycled ingredients and turning upcycled raw materials into great-tasting products. Further obstacles lie in ensuring that upcycled food meets safety and health regulations and still tastes good. Then there is the issue of pricing. Although the cost of side streams might be low, upcycling processing and logistic costs are often significant. Intensifying competition for circular resources adds another layer of complexity. If the attributed values of upcycled food and ingredients can be substantiated more clearly as the market develops then the benefits of upcycling can be communicated and linked to “true value” (read more in Chapter 3) business models.

To increase upcycling in agrifood production and processing, these barriers need to be broken down. Every actor in and around the value chain has multiple roles to play in advancing the field. 

The figure below gives an overview of possible drivers and barriers actors face in the transition towards more upcycled food & ingredients and the different roles that those actors can play:

Food manufacturers can make upcycling part of procurement policies and product development, thereby supporting demand for upcycled ingredients. Ingredient producers can activate new suppliers to look at untapped sources of side streams and leverage their experience for R&D efforts. Retailers and food service companies can put more upcycled products on their menus and store shelves, boosting the profile for upcycled foods for consumers and incentivizing producers to join the market. Agricultural commodity processors and feed producers, for their part, can harness links with food manufacturers to find new directions for side streams in the food space. They can also become innovators themselves by finding new ways to make side streams viable for upcycling. With that respect, farmers and farmer cooperatives can also (collectively) explore the valorisation of unused side streams on their farms.

Governmental organisations can help untangle unwieldy existing regulations that discourage upcycling, and incentivise the practice instead by incorporating it into plans to cultivate a circular economy and meet climate targets. Researchers and knowledge institutes can focus on the areas of upcycling that are missing information, such as consumer attitudes toward upcycled products or how upcycling can enhance food security. Logistics and transport firms can look to develop systems for transporting side streams without falling short of food-safety and quality standards, while financial institutions can contribute their expertise to substantiate upcycling benefits. By promoting upcycling as a way to tackle sustainability issues, NGOs can raise awareness about its utility as a route towards a more circular food industry.

This is just a fraction of what a strong network of likeminded stakeholders could do in the world of upcycling. Each group brings something to the table. What we need now is to bring them together and motivate them to act.   

“Only with a systemic and collaborative multi-stakeholder approach we can achieve the target of halving food waste in 2030 in Europe and globally. Utilization of the whole crop and maximizing the use of valuable bioresources is the food supply chain, will contribute to resilient and inclusive food systems, while mitigating the impact on climate change and to protect biodiversity”.

Toine Timmermans, Director at Food Waste Free United

There are various schools of thought on what constitutes upcycled foods and ingredients, including a private standard created by the Upcycled Food Association (1), a U.S.-based nonprofit. Researchers have tackled the subject and identified some characteristics that crop up in various interpretations of upcycling. But there are still multiple interpretations about how to approach making claims about the values of upcycled products, like saying they have a positive environmental impact. This confusion blunts attempts from both public and private-sector actors to advance upcycling efforts.

Since the authors’ expertise lies primarily in Europe, the geographic scope of this paper will be mainly on that region. But many of the insights are applicable to other areas with similar value chains in place. While acknowledging differing views on how to define upcycled food and ingredients, the authors remain aligned on working together to develop a value proposition for upcycled products that is easy for consumers to understand (see chapter 4) and backed with verified data and a traceable chain of custody (see chapter 3).  Though food loss and waste can go in non-food directions like biofuels, the partners have decided to keep the paper’s focus on maintaining potentially food or feed-grade ingredients in the agrifood value chain.

The paper is based on three core premises:  

• Upcycling higher volumes of food losses towards food and ingredients is a “must-do” development goal.  
• Cross-sector collaboration is key to unleashing upcycling’s full potential.  
• Developing viable business models and paths to market will jumpstart the next stage of the upcycling journey. 

The purpose of this effort is not to dictate solutions for every issue. We do not claim to have it all figured out. Our aim is for this paper to serve as a jumping off point for anyone who wants to join the upcycling mission – to help grow their business, meet sustainability aims, or simply contribute to a more circular society. The Upcycling Community wants to be an agent of change, connecting the right stakeholders to develop a vibrant ecosystem.

“The Position Paper Upcycled Food & Ingredients was developed through intensive cooperation with various Upcycling Community partners and experts. Early on, the focus was on making reliable and impactful promises to the market and consumers. This publication, along with the new UPcycled4Food Initiative, showcases the potential of pre-competitive collaboration for future innovations in circular agrifood systems.”

Caroline Duivenvoorden, Programme Manager Circular Agrifood at Foodvalley

Defining upcycled ingredients

Pinning down definitions for upcycled ingredients isn’t simple. An upcycled ingredient refers to a substance or component used in food production that originates from materials generated during food processing that would otherwise get a lower destination according to the Food Hierarchy model – meaning it would not end up being consumed by humans. This concept aligns with sustainability principles by repurposing side streams into viable, safe, edible components that can be incorporated into food products.

Examples of upcycled food ingredients include:

1. Fruit pulp and peels from juice production converted into fruit bars or snacks or flakes or natural flavours.  

2. Brewer’s spent grains repurposed as flour for bread or snacks 

3. Vegetable trimmings and scraps transformed into vegetable broth or powders for seasoning or even functional ingredients.  

4. Fruits and vegetables refined and extruded wet side streams that can be reformulated into functional ingredients (color, flavouring, emulsifier properties 

5. Functional ingredients; color, taste, emulsification, texture and stability ingredients.  

6. Coffee grounds turned into coffee-flavored cookies or extracts 

7. Discarded bakery items transformed into breadcrumbs, croutons, sourdough, etc. . 

8. Animal bones and viscera processed with gentle technologies to produce taste and palatability solutions for food and feed products . 

Various of the partners of the Upcycling Community, demonstrated opportunities to upcycle the mention side streams into food grade ingredients in the ‘show cases’ chapter of this Position Paper.

“To achieve upcycling goals, we need clear definitions that guide companies, comply with safety rules, and are understandable to consumers. These definitions should be backed by traceable data to reduce greenwashing. Integrating upcycling traceability into existing food safety standards or developing certification schemes for upcycled food will help ensure truly circular practices”.

Laura Munoz, Business Development Lead at Greencovery

Defining upcycled food

If we define an upcycled food product as one which contains a significant share of upcycled ingredients, then we must first answer the question of what constitutes a “significant share”. One of the key organisations already shaping the thinking and market positioning around upcycled food is the Upcycled Food Association. According to the association’s Upcycled Certified Standard, a private label that the nonprofit has created, 10% of the ingredients in a finished food product (in terms of total mass) must be upcycled for it to be considered as an upcycled food product (See Chapter 2 Ecosystem Insights).

The partners of the Upcycling Community propose defining upcycled foods and ingredients as follow: “the use of potentially food-grade materials, that otherwise would not have gone toward human consumption for applications in food using verifiable supply chains.”

Defining Upcycled Food

The considerations of the Upcycling Community partners:

In order to call a food product “upcycled,” it is necessary to set a trustworthy percentage threshold for replacing a certain amount of a virgin ingredient in a food product with an upcycled one. However, setting this sort of firm percentage threshold of upcycled ingredients raises further questions.

Is 10% a realistic benchmark? Would it be more accurate to determine what comprises a significant share of upcycled ingredients based on type of side stream, ingredient or product?

The shared vision of the Upcycling Community :

The Upcycling Community thinks that aiming for a specific share of upcycled ingredients based on volume for each food product category is a fairer way of implementing a KPI-based (key performance indicator) method. The ease or difficulty of increasing a product’s share of upcycled ingredients depends on functional specifications, like composition or moisture level. Striving for a fixed percentage of upcycled ingredients that’s applicable to all types of food products does not allow for a fair comparison between products and might discourage some producers from getting into upcycling.

The partners of the Upcycling Community propose defining upcycled foods and ingredients as follow: “the use of potentially food-grade materials, that otherwise would not have gone toward human consumption for applications in food using verifiable supply chains.^*”

_{*Complying with the Generic Food Law that determines safety and quality related aspects of each and any food product in the EU market}

Besided distinguishing between different product categories, it’s also important to distinguish between functional ingredients and commodity ingredients. This is not only because of the different volumes that groups of ingredients can represent in an end-product, but also because of the different attributed values or trade-offs tied to replacing original/virgin-sourced ingredients with upcycled ones. To explain this a bit further:

• For commodity ingredients – trustworthy threshold for replacing “x %” of a virgin ingredient with “x %” upcycled ingredients in the total food product is a relevant ambition from a market perspective. For example, replacing “x %” of grains with x% of an upcycled macro ingredient like flour made from brewers spent grains, will be an impactfull market claim.

• For functional ingredients – like flavourings and colours and other functional ingredient like emulsifyers, texturisers and stabilisers – the availability of upcycled ingredients in food products is another factor and more difficult to communicate when the share of this ingredient in and end product is lower.

There are many raw material streams suitable for upcycling towards food, considering the fact that the creation of these streams is inherent in the production process of the primary product, the fact that they can potentially make the streams for food a high-value ingredient and be a suitable alternative to a non-circular and/or less sustainable and/or healthy ingredient, and that they are potentially large volumes. Below, for some residual streams, the routes through which they could potentially be reappropriated into food are illustration with some infographics.

Upcycling Oat Drink By-Products into Plant-Based Delights

_{Infographic is based on show cases of Greencovery}

From Brew to Drink & Bite: How Beer By-Products Are Transforming into Ingredients and Food

_{Infographic is based on show cases of Greencovery}

The Rinds of Parmesan Cheese: A Flavorful and Nutritious Soure for Food

_{Infographic is based on show cases of Greencovery}

Upcycling Okara By-Products into Plant-Based Ingredients again

_{Infographic is based on show cases of Greencovery}

So where does the upcycled food movement stand? We know that trailblazers are dipping their toes into the water and have been working on new ways to reinvent food waste. But what are some of the next steps that we need to take? In this chapter, the Upcycling Community presents a vision for the future, the role they will play, and the stakeholder support and collaboration they need to create optimal conditions for the market to grow. 

Upcycling is being put into practice across the industry, with companies ushering in innovation with products like nutritional snacks made from vegetable scraps and protein-rich snacks produced using spent brewing grains. The slow but steady rise of upcycled products shows how entrepreneurs and industry leaders can work together to make these goods more accessible and appealing.

For the Upcycling Community, upcycling higher volumes of food losses towards food and ingredients is a “must-do” development goal that should be adopted by both public and private institutions if we want to make optimal use of the resources we have and minimise the industry’s impact on the planet. To make upcycling side streams towards food a “common good”, we need to find new ways of collaborating throughout the value chain, and break down the market, regulatory and consumers barriers standing in the way.

By 2030 – a milestone year for the global sustainability agenda – the community wants to see progress in:  

• Connecting food-and-beverage makers with suppliers and producers of side streams and upcycled ingredients with the aim of getting more upcycled food/ingredients into companies’ product portfolios.  
• Spreading awareness among authorities, consumers and B2C companies about the benefits of upcycled food. Central to this goal is aligning upcycling efforts with EU 2030 goals to lower food waste at both industry (10%) and consumer (30%)  levels.   
• Developing a regulatory foundation for upcycling practices that will help companies make credible claims about their products, and market them responsibly to consumers.   

To make those ambitions reality, the partners are committed to collaborating on several fronts:

Industry partnerships:

Fostering collaboration among food manufacturers, retailers and upcycling startups is essential to making upcycled food the “new normal”. This will help make upcycling side streams towards food more cost-competitive relative to other avenues for side streams, like biofuels. This can be done by promoting new supply chain initiatives by activating the growing upcycling network. Such partnerships can also incentivise more businesses to incorporate upcycling into their procurement policies, develop new solutions, scale production, and solve logistical and distributional challenges.

Public-private partnerships:

Forming partnerships between the public and private sectors can accelerate innovations. Combining companies’ know-how with regulators’ policymaking expertise and research institutes’ academic rigor can generate actionable research for the industry. Other outcomes include the development of intellectual property, technologies to upcycle unusual side streams, and business models that break with traditional food production and are based on the demonstrable values of upcycled food.

Guidelines and standards:

Developing verifiable standards for upcycling that can be incorporated into existing private standards (B2B) or certifications (B2C) will be the cornerstone of a credible, traceable market for upcycled food and ingredients. This would involve the development of regulatory frameworks around certification, the integration of upcycling practices into existing quality standards like ISO and FSCC 22.000, and alignment with methods for lifecycle assessments. Arriving at some form of consensus on how to measure and present a product’s upcycling attributes is tricky, but necessary.

Consumer education:

Identifying the right communication channels and key messages to raise awareness about the environmental and social benefits or even health benefits of upcycled products, will contribute to more effective communication for those consumers willing to make more conscious sustainable choices.

Regulatory support:

Governments can incentivise upcycling by incorporating it into plans to cultivate a circular economy and meet climate targets.  Having a clear mandate and incentives from authorities could ensure that the right side streams are used for food instead of being used in other end-markets. Regulators can also assist in the creation of so-called experimental spaces, which give companies the freedom to test out new upcycling ideas without being constricted by prohibitive production costs and legislative limitations.

For industry partnerships to bear fruit, it is crucial to ensure that there are enough testing facilities available to support companies who want to get into upcycling or develop new products and processes.  

Granting companies easy access to shared facilities for end-to-end testing helps lower the bar for exploring upcycling, paving the way for new initiatives that speed up innovation. If companies interested in upcycling can use pilot plants specifically equipped for upcycling, they can test concepts more quickly using fewer resources. 

A pitfall worth mentioning is that upstream processes receive the most attention in the development phase. But downstream processes, such as drying, milling or packaging, need to be thoroughly tested as well to select the most suitable equipment for upscaling a particular upcycling process.    

By having customisable end-to-end testing, would-be “upcyclers” eliminate the potential problem raised by equipment selection: choosing the wrong technical solution or supplier for a specific process, causing issues during scaling up if equipment turns out to not work as expected and has to be replaced – an expensive mistake.  

Ideally, these facilities would offer the flexibility to incorporate specific equipment depending on each project’s needs.Though it ultimately lies on the upcycler to organise testing, they should be able to rely on the wider community for support. For example, a startup can organise tests at a public or commercial site and ask suppliers to lend equipment to tailor shared facilities to their needs. 

“Shared facilities play a pivotal role in de-risking and accelerating the scaling of novel food upcycling technologies. By providing affordable access to specialized equipment, infrastructure, and expertise, these facilities empower businesses of all sizes to transform food side streams and waste into high-value ingredients. This unlocks new revenue streams, enhancing sustainability and profitability across the food value chain.”

Emmanuel Anom, Sr. Project Manager – Shared Facilities at Foodvalley

The Upcycling Community aims to connect those in need of testing facilities with those who can meet them. This could take the form of networking events that match companies with ingredient manufacturers, equipment suppliers and commercial pilot plant owners. 

Ingredient manufacturers can provide expertise on how to use ingredients and testing facilities, while equipment suppliers have “customer experience centres” in which they can demonstrate their equipment and help customers with tests for raw materials/products. Commercial pilot plant operators can provide testing sites and support customers with equipment selection and test setups.  

“The number of projects related to reduction of food losses, valorisation and upcycling has increased significantly over the past few years.  Many equipment suppliers have shifted their product portfolios toward novel food production processes, like new upcycled technologies as well. Since “plug & play” solutions are unrealistic, extensive testing on pilot-scale and production scale is crucial to ensure new products meet technological and economic specifications”.

Frank Smalberg, Team leader Project management at Uticon Engineers

Upcycled products don’t just repurpose side streams, maximising food producers’ resources and profit, they can also have a positive environmental impact by lowering carbon footprints, and using land and/or water more efficiently. They can also have societal benefits: being healthier for consumers as they could contain more fibre and less sugar, or by getting farmers who produce raw materials a fairer price for their goods. The locality and circularity inherent in upcycled products that go through traceable “short chains”  are unique aspects that can be used to promote upcycling, appealing to consumers, businesses and regulators alike.

There are several examples of how these attributed benefits and impacts can be analysed and communicated. To make verifiable, credible claims about upcycled products, government stakeholders, certifying organisations and value chain partners need to work together to design frameworks for measuring the environmental and social impact of upcycled food and ingredients, aligning these with existing policies, guidelines and standards.  

All the business partners that collaborated on this paper underline the importance of being able to prove any additional attribute or claimed benefit of upcycled food and ingredients with verifiable data.  

“If you think you can do it alone, you are not thinking big enough”.

Klaas-Jan Zuidam, senior R&D manager at Unilever

Investment and funding are vital for the success of the upcycled food movement. Private investors, venture capitalists, and major food corporations can provide the financial support necessary for research and development, and the scaling of production. 

Growing the market share of upcycled ingredients and food isn’t solely about ethical considerations. It’s also about creating a profitable ecosystem. As demand for upcycled food and ingredients increases, economies of scale come into play, reducing production costs and making upcycled products price-competitive. 

The potential to make money from upcycled ingredients and food is enormous. With the right financial incentives, we can expedite the shift toward a more sustainable food industry, meeting the aims of reducing food waste, lowering carbon footprints, and meeting the demands of environmentally conscious consumers while still maintaining a healthy bottom line.  

Tapping the know-how of investors and financial institutions to substantiate the value of upcycling by quantifying the economic, societal and environmental value of products would greatly help advance the industry, making it more sound from a business and marketing perspective. 

Investors looking for innovative, sustainable and societally relevant food technology startups to invest in can use this paper to inform themselves of the challenges and opportunities companies face when trying to develop upcycled foods and bring them to market.   

“Through the system of True Value, appreciating the positive- and negative effects of production, upcycling has a profitable revenue model. Upcycling has a positive impact on reducing waste and will therefore be able to be valorised.”

Alex Datema, Food & Agri Director at Rabobank

The emergence of a private standard for upcycled food in the U.S. and Canada raises the question of whether such a benchmark is relevant for other regions (see Chapter 3) and how consumers in these markets would react to upcycled food labelling (see Chapter 4). The opinions of Upcycling Community partners about the potential value of certification vary widely, particularly as green claims are an increasingly regulated area (see Chapter 5).

Certifying upcycled food & ingredients

The considerations of the Upcycling Community partners:

On the one hand, Upcycling Community partners think that having certifications for upcycled food and ingredients can elevate the practice significantly, making upcycling more mainstream in Europe. This would not only help inform consumers about the value of upcycled foods but also simplify the communication of these benefits. Having a recognized method of certification would also enhance transparency, providing clear traceability to the upcycling process, which builds trust.

Moreover, it offers producers a competitive edge, distinguishing upcycled food and ingredients as environmentally responsible products. This could in turn encourage more companies to start upcycling, driving broader acceptance and more innovation that benefits the push toward a circular agrifood value chain.

However, there are a lot of moving parts to this:

There are also doubts as to how smoothly a new standard could be integrated in the saturated European market for private sustainability labels.

Moreover, any upcycling standard would also need to dovetail with government policies already in place or under development in Europe that regulate corporate claims about environmental or social benefits. Beyond the national level, upcyclers also need to fall in line with legislation at an EU and international level designed to protect consumers from greenwashing. For example, business looking to market food products as upcycled in the Netherlands would need to comply with both national and EU-wide efforts to regulate the introduction of such labels.

The shared visions of the Upcycling Community

Upcycling Community partners acknowledge the complications tied to setting a standard for certification. Having fixed parameters of what counts as “upcycled” could limit the recognition of the different types of direct or indirect benefits that such products can have, narrowing the potential appeal for consumers.

However, there are a lot of moving parts to this: Such a business would need to be preparing to meet the requirements of an upcoming policy from the Dutch Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality on how to list the purported impacts of a product. They would also need to meet the requirements of a potential European-set ECO label for sustainable foods.

The Upcycling Community partners are interested in the potential value of certification, but at the same time note the importance of collecting knowledge and connecting with relevant stakeholders to study potential benefits and risks.

“At IFF, we believe that by establishing a verifiable standard for upcycled food & ingredients, B2B and B2C companies can demonstrate their commitment to sustainability, foster industry accountability, and build consumer trust and confidence in upcycled food. It removes the burden of educating consumers from individual companies and overall aligns efforts toward a circular economy.”

Eve Martinet Bareau, Innovation Program Director, RE-IMAGINE WASTE™ at IFF

There are plenty of passionate advocates breaking new ground in the field of upcycling. But it’s not just companies or regulators that will tip the scale, consumers and non-governmental stakeholders need to play a part as well.

Promoting “upcycled” as an attribute and communicating benefits to consumers is a core part of generating demand for upcycled food and ingredients. Though this varies across regions and market segments, the concept of upcycled products is either completely new or not well-known for many consumers and B2C companies (see Chapter 3).

But as research from market insights group Innova shows, more and more consumers are paying attention to the sustainability of their food choices. They are also considering health more when choosing products.

These preferences align neatly with the benefits of buying and consuming upcycled food. However, these upsides aren’t immediately apparent to consumers. It is important to communicate these in a fact-based, concise manner. Upcycled products can have a positive environmental impact, leading to lower carbon footprints, and more efficient use of land and water. They can also be healthier, containing more fibre and less sugar, and generate societal benefits, for example by getting farmers who produce raw materials a fairer price for their goods. Another selling point is the inherent alignment with locality and circularity principles, which, combined with traceable “short chains”, can be marketed as unique aspects of upcycled food and ingredients.  

“At Lidl, we want all our food produced with care to reach consumers. With our “Waste-me-not” line, we make high-quality products from residual streams from our chain. By working together with suppliers, we save food and make upcycled products the new normal. Our customers love the taste and positive impact of those products!”

Quirine de Weerd, Senior Manager Corporate Affairs at LIDL

Based on a study of the Swedish Centre for Resource Recovery, University of Boras, the Upcycling Community partners highlight the following cues as potentially motivating or discouraging consumers to opt for upcycled food. Read more here > Upcycled food choice motives and their association with hesitancy towards consumption of this type of food: a Swedish study | Emerald Insight.

Communication at consumer level

The recommendations of the Upcycling Community partners:

Activating consumers, B2C companies and other stakeholders to fuel demand for upcycled food and ingredients requires an understanding of the current market, why upcycling appeals to certain people, and how to broaden that appeal. Hurdles like being hesitant about the safety of consuming food made from scraps – and being wary how it tastes – also need to be overcome. 

Recommendations of the Upcycling Community partners to move forward

Consumers should be educated that upcycled foods & food ingredients undergo same review, approval process, must aligns with same food/ingredients legislations that they are holding up to same quality standards as regular foods/food ingredients. Even the term ‘upcycled’ might be new, the concept has been here for a long time.

Another point is that more independent data and analysis are needed to safeguard claims around the listed cues for consumers to buy or reject upcycled food and ingredients.  

Finally, the last recommendation is that more research is needed to create the right insights on consumer motivations to purchase upcycled foods, and the possible trade-off between the presented potential benefits.

The shared visions of the Upcycling Community

Within the Upcycling Community, companies have different perspectives on how to communicate the benefits of upcycled food.

Some think that a establishing a recognised product category of upcycled food and ingredients will resonate best with the market, since the circular sourcing and processing of products made of side streams should be communicated as a food security and sustainability goal.

Other are convinced that benefits, like environmental impact scores and/or nutritional value, should be the key message for markets.

What connects community partners is to move forward together on recommendations to communicate any claims related to upcycled food and ingredients.

“Consumers should be educated that upcycled foods & food ingredients undergo same review, approval process, have to aligns with same food/ingredients legislations that they are holding up to same quality standards as regular foods and food ingredients. Also, even the term ‘upcycled’ might be rather new, the concept has been here for a long time.“

Bahar Yalcindag, former Side Streams Upcycling Platform Director at Business Incubation Group; Taste, Nutrition & Health, Symrise

NGOs working in sustainable food production are aware of the environmental and societal impact of food loss and waste, with some focusing specifically on how to prevent waste as part of national or international sustainability programs. However, finding opportunities to repurpose unavoidable loss or waste is often not part of organisations’ agenda. By promoting upcycling as a way to tackle sustainability issues, NGOs can play a huge part in raising awareness of the process and its benefits at a societal and governmental level. NGOs that want to take on that role can use the insights given in this paper as a guide and connect with players in the upcycling ecosystem.

Although upcycling is getting something of a regulatory push from developments like the European Commission’s proposed targets to accelerate food waste reduction in the EU by 2030, and national government programmes to develop short supply chains to encourage companies to upcycle side streams, more needs to be done to set guidelines on upcycling.

In this paper, an overview is provided on the various laws and regulations that present both barriers and opportunities for companies looking to bring innovative upcycling technologies to market or process new side steams into food.  

For upcycled food, there are three main legislative frameworks that are most relevant:  

• The Waste Directive: an initiative supervised by national authorities determining the procedures for changing the status of waste into food/feed-grade ingredients   

• General Food Law: regulation supervised by national authorities (e.g. NVWA in The Netherlands) determining the generic standards for the production, processing, storage and distribution of food ingredients, and preventing unsafe side streams from entering the market  

• Novel Food Regulation: supervised by the European Food Safety Authority; determines the acceptance of upcycled new ingredients for food   

One of the major issues from a regulatory perspective is the unclear definitions around and classification of side streams as waste instead of a byproduct under the EU Waste Framework Directive [see scientific reflections chapter 6]. The regulation is very strict, which limits how companies can process side streams into food-grade products.

“At a macro level, governmental organizations should promote circularity and include upcycling in policies to reduce food waste and environmental impact. At a micro level, upcycling should be part of environmental labeling, despite current LCA methodology gaps. In the short term, it can boost environmental scores, with a long-term goal of developing clear LCA methods for avoided emissions”.

Manon Ledoux, Chief Product Officer at Green Spot Technologies

The regulatory landscape initially casts side streams as “waste,” a label deterring their appeal as potential food-grade ingredients for producers. Labelling hurdles also complicate consumer acceptance, highlighting the need for more apt terminology. Addressing this requires shifting the narrative of how side streams are portrayed in regulations.

Processing side streams to ensure safety and quality is essential, but upcycling leans heavily on innovation and new processes, indicating a need for flexible regulatory frameworks. Collaborations between food manufacturers, ingredient producers and side stream suppliers revealed complexities in aligning internal food-safety protocols.

Implementation also poses a problem, as authorities at regional levels like municipalities can cause misunderstanding of complicated EU-level regulations that may not be easy to interpret, or simply lack the knowledge of how to deal with the exemptions set out in the regulations.

Actors across the value chain also need to do more to work with governmental authorities to advance the classification of biomass streams that could be used for upcycling into food, as well as procedures to guarantee the safety, quality, environmental performance and healthiness of upcycled ingredients and food products.

As upcycled foods and food ingredients deal with otherwise unutilised or discarded materials, novel food legislation is inherently a barrier for many upcycled products.

Novel food is defined by the European Commission as food that had not been consumed to a significant degree by humans in the EU before May 15, 1997, when the first regulation on novel food came into force. Novel food legislation is in place to ensure food safety and protect consumers. It should doubtless be a priority for food business operators. However, the process of getting a novel food candidate approved is cumbersome and time-consuming. Since many upcycled products -band especially upcycled ingredients -bare categorised as novel foods, the legislation unwittingly becomes an effective roadblock for many small and medium-sized enterprises seeking to valorise food side streams. ¹

Having a more streamlined process for approving novel foods would be beneficial for getting more companies to try their hand at upcycling. It would be particularly helpful for smaller actors in the value chain who want to innovate, lowering entry barriers for them to enter the field.  

The Waste Framework Directive (WFD) also poses potential limitations to the widespread adoption of upcycling. One issue is that there is no centralized authority in place to handle the WFD like there is for the novel food approvals, resulting in a lack of coordination at a European level on what approvals are applicable for valorising waste streams as food ingredients. The company Peel Pioneers is well-known by the success story how they changed the status of ‘waste’ to ‘food grade side streams’ for the peels that are left over after juicing (more info). There are also many side streams that are not categorised as waste, but as “organic material”, “feed”, etc., like e.g. the brewers spent grain, and theoretically could be exposed to similar hazards and risk. These can be upcycled to food without any of the aforementioned regulatory roadblocks, as long as they meet existing safety and food quality standards. See for more information also the scientific reflections of Madhura Rao, Postdoctoral fellow at the Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam.

This is where an experienced organization like the Netherlands Food and Consumer Product Safety Authority could come in and help create a regulatory backdrop conducive for upcycling. Commercial control bodies who audit compliance with food safety and quality standards (like FSC 2000 and GMP+) can also move the needle in terms of upcycling-friendly legislation.  

The proposed European Green Claims Directive is another majorly relevant piece of legislation. The direction, currently being reviewed by the European Council, aims to eliminate misleading environmental messaging across EU markets and address greenwashing concerns by setting detailed rules for how companies should market their environmental impacts and performance.  After the trilogue phase between the European Council, The European Commission and Parliament, will determine what actual measures that will be implemented by means of the implementation of a Green Claims Directive.

Key measures of the directive include ensuring consumers reliable, comparable and verifiable environmental information on products. It sets clear criteria on how companies should prove their environmental claims and labels, which must be checked by an independent, accredited verifier. There are also rules governing environmental labelling to ensure they are transparent and trustworthy. 

For upcycling, this is both an opportunity and a challenge. The aims of the Green Claims Directive are in line with the aims of the upcycling community – at their core, both want to build a system for regulating and responsibly promoting products making sustainability claims.

That suggests that regulators and upcycling innovators can work together on getting upcycled products into the hands of consumers and on store shelves, without comprising any safety, ethical or health standards.  

Regulation will always come with challenges but offers great advantages too. If regulators incorporate upcycling into government plans to cultivate a circular economy and meet climate targets, that will provide a huge incentive for businesses to start upcycling.

In Europe, this would need to be done at both the European Union and national levels for maximum effectiveness. Having a clear mandate and incentives from authorities could ensure that the right side streams are used for food instead of being used in other end-markets. Setting targets for upcycled food in government-level procurement policies would provide significant incentives for the market. 

At the same time, the Upcycling Community partner acknowledge that there is collaborative work to be done to incorporate the right principles to assess the ‘changed’ environmental impact by replacing (a) virgin ingredient(s) for a(n) upcycled one(s), based on existing and future frameworks to calculate and communicate about the ‘green value’ of upcycled food and ingredients. In particular in relation to an optimal with the CSRD Directive, PEFCR Guidelines, EMAS and /or the potential launch of an ECO-Label for food.

Regulators can also assist in creating so-called experimental spaces. Companies need such spaces to test out new ideas without being constrained by prohibitive production costs and legislative limitations. Having this sort of freedom to experiment will promote innovation and encourage more businesses to adopt solutions for upcycling agrifood side streams in food and feed. 

“The Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality is committed to the reduction of food waste. We are supportive of initiatives and concepts that contribute to this goal. I am pleased to see that the market and science are contributing to solutions for social issues like food waste. I am hopeful that in the near future, I will see more and more products in which side streams of the agrifood sector will be upcycled, because there is still a big impact to be made here.”

Jan-Kees Goet, Secretary-General Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality

Regulators interested in making upcycling a policy objective should reach out to the companies and experts in the field to start discussing how to create the legal backdrop necessary to bring the market to maturity, including via linking existing policies and frameworks to the values of upcycled food and ingredients.

“From the Province of Gelderland, making the agrifood chain more sustainable is an important theme, with a circular food system being one of the focal points. We contribute to this at ‘the front end’ by encouraging companies that lead the way in this, for instance through subsidies and network development. At the same time, the Province can play a role in developing demand for upcycled food products and ingredients”.

José van Gerven, Project Manager at Agrofood Innovations Province of Gelderland, The Netherlands

At Foodvalley, we believe that the input of all actors in the system is needed to meet the challenges facing future generations: having access to healthy, affordable, and sustainably produced food. Instilling the optimal use of raw materials for food is part of this mission.

The amount of nutritious raw materials that gets lost from farm to fork are enormous. In Western countries, we have highly developed and technologically driven food chains. As long as raw materials for food continue to be highly processed because of application, shelf life, taste or other health and quality aspects, there will always be by-products that do not have a place in the final product. To this end, while it is important that we look as much as possible at how factory processes can be redesigned to prevent losses, we must also look at how losses can be reabsorbed more often and easily, and given a new purpose as a raw material or food product.

This is why Foodvalley formed the Upcycling Community, an ambitious and diverse group of partners working on impactful initiatives to valorise food production side streams and losses.

The seed for the initiative of the Position Paper was planted during a hybrid webinar held by Foodvalley on February 14, 2023 with various future Upcycling Community partners. (How to move consumer and market towards more upcycled food. The insights gathered were developed over follow-up sessions, resulting in a communal effort to share thoughts about the opportunities and barriers related to the market for upcycled food and ingredients, and ultimately, to this position paper.

This publication is all about the relatively new market of upcycled food and ingredients and its crucial role in the future of circular agrifood systems. In the paper, you will discover broadly shared visions and ambitions from about 50 parties, varying from Foodvalley’s Upcycling Community partners to academics, and other organisations

The goals of this publication

• Unite Stakeholders: Align parties along the value chain with a clear and shared definition of “upcycled food.”

• Drive Ambitions: Foster ambitions surrounding upcycled food and its market growth.

• Plan for the Future: Outline the necessary steps to achieve these goals and drive progress forward.

Authors & Editors

The Foodvalley Upcycling Community partners have been involved in the creation of this position paper at different times and in different ways.

Editorial team

The editorial team has been responsible for compiling all the insights gathered from various working group sessions with community partners and formulating the visions on behalf of the upcycling community. This team consisted of:

• Signe Causse  – IFF 
• Bahar Yalcindag – Symrise 
• Lazlo Hornyak – Bunge
• Caroline Duivenvoorden – Foodvalley  
• Fabiana Negrin – Freelance editor 

Working groups:

Several Upcycling Community partners were directly involved in discussing the visions of the themes reflected in the chapters of this Position Paper during the various working group sessions we organised in the first six months of the paper’s development. The following partners were involved:

• Alistair Smith | Unilever
• Allard Langenhuijsen |  NoPalm Ingredients
• Bahar Yalcindag  | Symrise
• Carlos Cabrera  | Greencovery
• Carsten Petry | Circular Food Solutions (Bühler Group)
• David Gebhardt  | Herbafood Ingredients
• Derk van Manen | Duynie Group
• Eve Martinet Bareau |  IFF
• Filomena Rinaldi  | Symrise
• Frank Meijer | IFF
• Frank Smalberg  |  Uticon
• Frédéric Mauny  | Waste me UP
• Friedrich Witschi  | Circular Food Solutions (Bühler Group)
• Huub Scheres | IFF
• Julie Beragne | Green Spot Technologies
• Klaas-Jan Zuidam  | Unilever
• Laszlo Hornyak  |  Bunge
• Laura Muñoz  | Greencovery
• Lucas Camargo  | Gea Brewery systems
• Manon Ledoux | Green Spot Technologies
• Miguel Angel Cubero Marquez | Ingredalia
• Monika Černiauskaitė  | UpCircld Kitchen
• Nicole Timmerman  | Duynie Group
• Noa Bastiaans  | H&F Group
• Sebastiaan Hetterschijt |  Bakkersgrondstof
• Signe Causse  | IFF

Contributors & Partners

Several experts, business leaders and policy and decision makers contributed to this paper:

•           Alex Datema |  Rabobank
•           Angie Crone | (former CEO) Upcycled Food Association
•           Asger Smidt  Jensen |  Teknologisk Institut Denmark
•           Belmin Djuheric |  Innova Market Insights
•           Derya Kahveci Karıncaoğlu | Istanbul Technical University
•           Erik Beugeling |  Dutch Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality
•           Francesca Goodman Smit | Fight Food Waste Australia
•           Fred Beekmans  |  Wageningen University & Research
•           Hanieh Moshtaghian  | RISE Research Institutes of Sweden
•           Imke de Boer   |   Wageningen University & Research
•           Jan Kees Goet  |  Dutch Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality
•           José van Gerven |  Provincie Gelderland
•           Machiel Reinders |  Wageningen University & Research
•           Madhura Rao  | Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
•           Marcel Lambregts |  Rabobank
•           Mariel Nunley  | Upcycled Food Association
•           Quirine de Weerd  | LIDL Nederland
•           Toine Timmermans  |  Food Waste Free United

Please refer to the Appendix, for all utilised insights from publicly available publications referenced is this paper.

Has this paper provided you with valuable insights and do you support the transition to more upcycled residuals towards food products? Leave your logo in the contact form to reinforce the value of this Position Paper on behalf of your organisation.

This paper is supported by the Foodvalley Upcycling Community

The Upcycling Community is an international and closed group of partners collaborating on the upcycling of food losses towards food and feed. The community setting creates a safe environment where organizations can share ideas, and get inspired by new developments and insights from the market and research. The Upcycling Community contains business partners who are ambitious about upcycling, come from various parts of the value chain, and vary from scale-up to SME and corporate organisation.

Several frontrunner partners from the Upcycling Community are proud to showcase their solutions and the benefits of turning (potentially) food-grade biomass into higher-value and often healthier products. Get inspired by their products, technologies, and services in this paper!

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)

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)