Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Article
  • Published:

Food waste used as a resource can reduce climate and resource burdens in agrifood systems

Nature Food volume 6, pages 478–490 (2025)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

Global food loss and waste continues to increase despite efforts to reduce it. Food waste causes a disproportionally large carbon footprint and resource burdens, which require urgent action to transition away from a disposal-dominated linear system to a circular bioeconomy of recovery and reuse of valuable resources. Here, using data from field-based studies conducted under diverse conditions worldwide, we found collective evidence that composting, anaerobic digestion and repurposing food waste to animal feed (re-feed) result in emission reductions of about 1 tCO2e t−1 food waste recycled compared with landfill disposal. Emission mitigation capacity resulting from no landfill disposal in the United States, the European Union and China would average 39, 20 and 115 MtCO2e, which could offset 10%, 5% and 17% of the emissions from these large agricultural systems, respectively. In addition, re-feed could spare enormous amounts of land, water, agricultural fuel and fertilizer use. Our findings provide a benchmark for countries developing food waste management strategies for a circular agrifood system.

Access through your institution
Buy or subscribe

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Access through your institution

Buy this article

  • Purchase on SpringerLink
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: Global–regional distribution of studies selected through comprehensive literature review.
Fig. 2: Carbon footprint of food waste recycling treatment via AC, AD or re-feed compared with that of landfill disposal.
Fig. 3: Transforming existing food waste management schemes in the United States, the EU and China can substantially offset emissions from their agricultural systems.

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

The source data for the bootstrapping analyses used to compute the means and 95% CIs of the carbon footprints of the food waste treatments, landfill emissions and product metrics and for the impact analysis of the food waste management schemes of the United States, the EU and China are available on Zenodo at https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14826061 (ref. 81). All other data that support the findings of this study are provided in the article. Source data are provided with this paper.

Code availability

The code used in the Stata statistical analysis is available on Zenodo at https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14826061 (ref. 81).

References

  1. Clark, M. A., Domingo, N., Colgan, K., Thakrar, S. K. & Hill, J. D. Global food system emissions could preclude achieving the 1.5° and 2 °C climate change targets. Science 370, 705–708 (2020).

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. UAE Declaration on Sustainable Agriculture, Resilient Food Systems, and Climate Action (COP28, 2023); https://www.cop28.com/en/food-and-agriculture

  3. The State of Food and Agriculture: Revealing the True Cost of Food to Transform Agrifood Systems (FAO, 2023); https://www.fao.org/3/cc7724en/cc7724en.pdf

  4. Rosenzweig, C. et al. Climate change responses benefit from a global food system approach. Nat. Food 1, 94–97 (2020).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Zurek, M., Hebinck, A. & Selomane, O. Climate change and the urgency to transform food systems. Science 376, 1416–1421 (2022).

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Gatto, A. & Chepeliev, M. Global food loss and waste estimates show increasing nutritional and environmental pressures. Nat. Food 5, 136–147 (2024).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Wang, X. et al. Global food nutrients analysis reveals alarming gaps and daunting challenges. Nat. Food 4, 1007–1017 (2023).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Crippa, M. et al. Food systems are responsible for a third of global anthropogenic GHG emissions. Nat. Food 2, 198–209 (2021).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Tubiello, F. N. et al. Pre- and post-production processes increasingly dominate greenhouse gas emissions from agri-food systems. Earth Syst. Sci. Data 14, 1795–1809 (2022).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  10. Zhu, J. et al. Cradle-to-grave emissions from food loss and waste represent half of total greenhouse gas emissions from food systems. Nat. Food 4, 247–256 (2023).

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. What a Waste 2.0: A Global Snapshot of Solid Waste Management to 2050 (World Bank, 2018); https://elibrary.worldbank.org/doi/pdf/10.1596/978-1-4648-1329-0

  12. Methane and Climate Change (International Energy Agency, 2024); https://www.iea.org/reports/methane-tracker-2021/methane-and-climate-change

  13. Richardson, K. et al. Earth beyond six of nine planetary boundaries. Sci. Adv. 9, eadh2458 (2023).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Dou, Z. & Toth, J. D. Global primary data on consumer food waste: rate and characteristics—a review. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 168, 105332 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Dou, Z., Dierenfeld, E. S., Wang, X., Chen, X. & Shurson, G. C. A critical analysis of challenges and opportunities for upcycling food waste to animal feed to reduce climate and resource burdens. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 203, 107418 (2024).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Shurson, G. C., Dierenfeld, E. S. & Dou, Z. Rules are meant to be broken—rethinking the regulations on the use of food waste as animal feed. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 199, 107273 (2023).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Spang, E. S. et al. Food loss and waste: measurement, drivers, and solutions. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 44, 117–156 (2019).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  18. Pinotti, L. et al. Recycling food leftovers in feed as opportunity to increase the sustainability of livestock production. J. Clean. Prod. 294, 126290 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Westendorf, M. Food Waste as Animal Feed: An Introduction (John Wiley & Sons, 2000).

  20. zu Ermgassen, E. K., Phalan, B., Green, R. E. & Balmford, A. Reducing the land use of EU pork production: where there’s swill, there’s a way. Food Policy 58, 35–48 (2016).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Awasthi, S. K. et al. Changes in global trends in food waste composting: research challenges and opportunities. Bioresour. Technol. 299, 122555 (2020).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Blengini, G. A. Using LCA to evaluate impacts and resources conservation potential of composting: a case study of the Asti District in Italy. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 52, 1373–1381 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Bong, C. P. C. et al. The characterisation and treatment of food waste for improvement of biogas production during anaerobic digestion—a review. J. Clean. Prod. 172, 1545–1558 (2018).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Kim, M. H., Song, H. B. & Song, Y. Evaluation of food waste disposal options in terms of global warming and energy recovery: Korea. Int. J. Energy Environ. Eng. 4, 1 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Baker, L. et al. Leveraging dairy cattle to upcycle culled citrus fruit for emission mitigation and resource co-benefits: a case study. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 203, 107452 (2024).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Nakaishi, T. & Takayabu, H. Production efficiency of animal feed obtained from food waste in Japan. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. Int. 29, 61187–61203 (2022).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Pinotti, L. et al. Pig-based bioconversion: the use of former food products to keep nutrients in the food chain. Animal 17, 100918 (2023).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Latka, C. et al. Competing for food waste—policies’ market feedbacks imply sustainability tradeoffs. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 186, 106545 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Cusworth, D. H. et al. Quantifying methane emissions from United States landfills. Science 383, 1499–1504 (2024).

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories (IPCC, 2006); https://www.ipcc.ch/report/2006-ipcc-guidelines-for-national-greenhouse-gas-inventories/

  31. Cherubini, F., Bargigli, S. & Ulgiati, S. Life cycle assessment (LCA) of waste management strategies: landfilling, sorting plant and incineration. Energy 34, 2116–2123 (2009).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Eriksson, M., Strid, I. & Hansson, P.-A. Carbon footprint of food waste management options in the waste hierarchy—a Swedish case study. J. Clean. Prod. 93, 115–125 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Gómez-Sanabria, A., Kiesewetter, G., Klimont, Z., Schoepp, W. & Haberl, H. Potential for future reductions of global GHG and air pollutants from circular waste management systems. Nat. Commun. 13, 106 (2022).

    Article  ADS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Shukla, K. A. et al. Food waste management and sustainable waste to energy: current efforts, anaerobic digestion, incinerator and hydrothermal carbonization with a focus in Malaysia. J. Clean. Prod. 448, 141457 (2024).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Ruminant Methanogens as a Climate Change Target (American Society of Microbiology, 2023); https://asm.org/Articles/2023/June/Ruminant-Methanogens-as-a-Climate-Change-Target

  36. (USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service, 2024); https://www.nass.usda.gov/Newsroom/

  37. Govoni, C., D’Odorico, P., Pinotti, L. & Rulli, M. C. Preserving global land and water resources through the replacement of livestock feed crops with agricultural by-products. Nat. Food 4, 1047–1057 (2023).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Karlsson, J. O., Parodi, A., van Zanten, H. H. E., Hansson, P.-A. & Röös, E. Halting European Union soybean feed imports favours ruminants over pigs and poultry. Nat. Food 2, 38–46 (2020).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Liu, Z. et al. Optimization of China’s maize and soy production can ensure feed sufficiency at lower nitrogen and carbon footprints. Nat. Food 2, 426–433 (2021).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. SDG Target 12.3 on Food Loss and Waste: 2022 Progress Report (World Resources Institute, 2022); https://champions123.org/publication/sdg-target-123-food-loss-and-waste-2022-progress-report

  41. Driven to Waste: The Global Impact of Food Loss and Waste on Farms (World Wildlife Fund, 2021); https://www.worldwildlife.org/publications/driven-to-waste-the-global-impact-of-food-loss-and-waste-on-farms

  42. Gustavsson, J., Cederberg, C., Sonesson, U., Van Otterdijk, R. & Meybeck, A. Global Food Losses and Food Waste: Extent, Causes and Prevention (FAO, 2011).

  43. SDG Target 12.3 on Food Loss and Waste: 2023 Progress Report (World Resources Institute, 2023); https://champions123.org/sites/default/files/2023-10/2023%20Champions%20Progress%20Report.pdf

  44. SDG Target 12.3 on Food Loss and Waste: 2024 Progress Report (World Resources Institute, 2024); https://champions123.org/2024-progress-report

  45. Mourad, M. Recycling, recovering and preventing “food waste”: competing solutions for food systems sustainability in the United States and France. J. Clean. Prod. 126, 461–477 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Shigetomi, Y., Ishigami, A., Long, Y. & Chapman, A. Curbing household food waste and associated climate change impacts in an ageing society. Nat. Commun. 15, 8806 (2024).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  47. Stancu, V., Haugaard, P. & Lähteenmäki, L. Determinants of consumer food waste behaviour: two routes to food waste. Appetite 96, 7–17 (2016).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Aye, L. & Widjaya, E. R. Environmental and economic analyses of waste disposal options for traditional markets in Indonesia. Waste Manage. 26, 1180–1191 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Takata, M. et al. The effects of recycling loops in food waste management in Japan: based on the environmental and economic evaluation of food recycling. Sci. Total Environ. 432, 309–317 (2012).

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Quirós, R. et al. Environmental assessment of two home composts with high and low gaseous emissions of the composting process. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 90, 9–20 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Berglund, M. & Börjesson, P. Assessment of energy performance in the life-cycle of biogas production. Biomass Bioenergy 30, 254–266 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Fontaine, J., Hörr, J. & Schirmer, B. Near-infrared reflectance spectroscopy enables the fast and accurate prediction of the essential amino acid contents in soy, rapeseed meal, sunflower meal, peas, fishmeal, meat meal products, and poultry meal. J. Agric. Food Chem. 49, 57–66 (2001).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Noel, S. J., Jørgensen, H. J. H. & Knudsen, K. E. B. Prediction of protein and amino acid composition and digestibility in individual feedstuffs and mixed diets for pigs using near-infrared spectroscopy. Anim. Nutr. 7, 1242–1252 (2021).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  54. Wang, Y. et al. Evidence of animal productivity outcomes when fed diets including food waste: a systematic review of global primary data. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 203, 107411 (2024).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Shurson, G. C. et al. New perspectives for evaluating relative risks of African swine fever virus contamination in global feed ingredient supply chains. Transbound. Emerg. Dis. 69, 31–56 (2022).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Shurson, G. C. “What a waste”—can we improve sustainability of food animal production systems by recycling food waste streams into animal feed in an era of health, climate, and economic crises? Sustainability 12, 7071 (2020).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  57. Shurson, G. C., Urriola, P. E. & Ligt, J. L. G. Can we effectively manage parasites, prions, and pathogens in the global feed industry to achieve One Health? Transbound. Emerg. Dis. 69, 4–30 (2021).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Balestreri, C. et al. Unexpected thermal stability of two enveloped megaviruses, Emiliania huxleyi virus and African swine fever virus, as measured by viability PCR. Virol. J. 21, 1 (2024).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  59. Mazur-Panasiuk, N., Żmudzki, J. & Woźniakowski, G. African swine fever virus—persistence in different environmental conditions and the possibility of its indirect transmission. J. Vet. Res. 63, 303–310 (2019).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  60. Taylor, D. Inactivation of transmissible degenerative encephalopathy agents: a review. Vet. J. 159, 10–17 (2000).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Georganas, A. et al. Redefining the future of catering waste application in animal diets—a review on the minimization of potential hazards in catering waste prior to application in animal diets. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 289, 115334 (2022).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  62. Eco-feed (Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries of Japan, 2024); https://www.maff.go.jp/j/chikusan/sinko/lin/l_siryo/ecofeed.html

  63. Food Conservation Action Plan (Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs of China, accessed 3 November 2021); http://www.moa.gov.cn/gk/zcfg/xzfg/202111/t20211103_6381159.htm

  64. James, K., Millington, A. & Randall, N. Food and Feed Safety Vulnerabilities in the Circular Economy (EFSA, 2022).

  65. Elleby, C., Jensen, H. G., Domínguez, I. P., Chatzopoulos, T. & Charlebois, P. Insects reared on food waste: a game changer for global agricultural feed markets? EuroChoices 20, 56–62 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Mlambo, V. et al. Rethinking food waste: exploring a black soldier fly larvae-based upcycling strategy for sustainable poultry production. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 199, 107284 (2023).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Pinotti, L., Giromini, C., Ottoboni, M., Tretola, M. & Marchis, D. Insects and former foodstuffs for upgrading food waste biomasses/streams to feed ingredients for farm animals. Animal 13, 1365–1375 (2019).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Wehrens, R., Putter, H. & Buydens, L. The bootstrap: a tutorial. Chemom. Intell. Lab. Syst. 54, 35–52 (2000).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  69. Wang, H. et al. Yield and water productivity of crops, vegetables and fruits under subsurface drip irrigation: a global meta-analysis. Agric. Water Manage. 269, 107645 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Food: Material-Specific Data (US Environmental Protection Agency, 2023); https://www.epa.gov/facts-and-figures-about-materials-waste-and-recycling/food-material-specific-data

  71. Food Waste and Food Waste Prevention by NACE Rev. 2 Activity—Tonnes of Fresh Mass (Eurostat, 2023); https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/main/data/database

  72. Xue, L. et al. China’s food loss and waste embodies increasing environmental impacts. Nat. Food 2, 519–528 (2021).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. Padeyanda, Y., Jang, Y.-C., Ko, Y. & Yi, S. Evaluation of environmental impacts of food waste management by material flow analysis (MFA) and life cycle assessment (LCA). J. Mater. Cycles Waste 18, 493–508 (2016).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  74. Ritchie, H., Rosado, P. & Roser, M. CO2 and greenhouse gas emissions (Our World in Data, 2023); https://ourworldindata.org/co2-and-greenhouse-gas-emissions

  75. Kamopas, W. & Kiatsiriroat, T. Regeneration of mono-ethanolamine solution after biogas purification by electrical heating with assisted ultrasonic wave. Waste Biomass Valorization 10, 3879–3884 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. Fung, L., Urriola, P. E., Baker, L. & Shurson, G. C. Estimated energy and nutrient composition of different sources of food waste and their potential for use in sustainable swine feeding programs. Transl. Anim. Sci. 3, 359–368 (2019).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  77. Fung, L., Urriola, P. E. & Shurson, G. C. Energy, amino acid, and phosphorus digestibility and energy prediction of thermally processed food waste sources for swine. Transl. Anim. Sci. 3, 676–691 (2019).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  78. Jinno, C. et al. Enzymatic digestion turns food waste into feed for growing pigs. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 242, 48–58 (2018).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  79. Heuzé, V., Tran, G., Bastianelli, D. & Lebas, F. Animal feed resources information system (Feedipedia, 2023); https://www.feedipedia.org/

  80. FAOSTAT (FAO, 2020); http://www.fao.org/faostat/zh/#data

  81. Wang, Y. Supplemental information of “Food waste utilized as resources can reduce climate and resource burdens in agrifood systems”. Zenodo https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14826061 (2025).

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the National Key Research and Development Program of China (2022YFD1901501, 2021YFD1901001, H.Y.), the Major Science and Technology Project of Yunnan Province (202202AE090034, H.Y.), the Major Science and Technology Project of Shandong Province (2023TZXD088, 2024CXPT075, Z.C.) and Natural Science Foundation of Zhejiang Province, China (number LY22E080009, T.C.). This study also received funding from the following sources: University of Pennsylvania Global Engagement (Z.D.), Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture (Z.D.) and USDA-NIFA IDEAS Program (number 2022-68014-36664, project accession number 1028184; Z.D.).

Author information

Author notes

  1. These authors contributed equally: Yingcheng Wang, Hao Ying.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. State Key Laboratory of Nutrient Use and Management, College of Resources and Environmental Sciences, China Agricultural University, Beijing, China

    Yingcheng Wang, Hao Ying, Zihan Wang, Yulong Yin, Huifang Zheng & Zhenling Cui

  2. Department of Clinical Studies—New Bolton Center, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Kennett Square, PA, USA

    Yingcheng Wang, Darko Stefanovski & Zhengxia Dou

  3. Department of Animal Science, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN, USA

    Gerald C. Shurson

  4. School of Environmental Science and Engineering, Zhejiang Gongshang University, Hangzhou, China

    Ting Chen

  5. School of Agriculture, Henan Institute of Science and Technology, Xinxiang, China

    Huifang Zheng

  6. Faculty of Economics, Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan

    Tomoaki Nakaishi

  7. Organic Recycling Research Institute, China Agricultural University, Suzhou, China

    Ji Li

Authors
  1. Yingcheng Wang
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Hao Ying
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Darko Stefanovski
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Gerald C. Shurson
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Ting Chen
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Zihan Wang
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Yulong Yin
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Huifang Zheng
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Tomoaki Nakaishi
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Ji Li
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Zhenling Cui
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Zhengxia Dou
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Z.D. and Z.C. designed and directed the study. Z.W., Y.Y., H.Z. and T.N. contributed to the literature search and data acquisition. T.C. and J.L. participated in project planning and discussion. D.S. conducted bootstrapping and Monte Carlo statistical simulations and analysis, wrote the description of the statistical methods, and reviewed the results. Z.D., Y.W., H.Y. and Z.C. collaborated on data management and organization and paper development. Z.D. and Y.W. wrote the paper, and G.C.S. contributed to the paper review, editing and revision. All authors contributed to the discussion of the study and development of the paper.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Zhenling Cui or Zhengxia Dou.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Peer review

Peer review information

Nature Food thanks Prajal Pradhan and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Extended data

Extended Data Fig. 1 Flow chart of literature search and selection processes for studies on food waste treatment via aerobic composting (AC), anaerobic digestion (AD), re-purposing to animal feed (Re-Feed), or landfill disposal, in terms of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and product for recycling-reuse.

Of 91 studies selected, 50 included two or more food waste treatment methods.

Extended Data Fig. 2 The system starts with food waste collection and coupled with transport, then followed by processing, and ends with the production of the final product.

Standardized system boundaries to cover food waste collection, transport, and processing through AC, AD, or Re-Feed.

Extended Data Table 1 Model-adjusted means and 95% CIs of carbon footprint for food waste treatment via composting (AC), anaerobic digestion (AD), and re-purposing to animal feed (Re-Feed), as well as food waste landfill
Full size table
Extended Data Table 2 End-of-life food waste management schemes in the US, EU, China, and total greenhouse gas emissions
Full size table
Extended Data Table 3 Emission mitigation capacity for US, EU, and China under a zero-landfill scenario (S1) and a zero-disposal scenario (S2)1
Full size table
Extended Data Table 4 Model-adjusted means and 95% CIs of product metrics for 1 t food waste treated via aerobic composting (AC), anaerobic digestion (AD), or re-purposing to animal feed (Re-Feed)
Full size table
Extended Data Table 5 Total amounts of compost, biogas (expressed as renewable energy), digestate, upcycled feed, and nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P) contained in compost and digestate under zero-landfill scenario (S1) and zero-disposal scenario (S2)
Full size table
Extended Data Table 6 Amounts of maize and soybeans substitution with upcycled feed produced from 1/3 of the food waste amounts allocated to Re-Feed under zero-landfill scenario (S1) and zero-disposal scenario (S2)
Full size table
Extended Data Table 7 Protocol for systematic literature review of studies on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of food waste treatment via aerobic composting (AC), anaerobic digestion (AD), re-purposing to make animal feed (Re-Feed), or landfill disposal
Full size table

Supplementary information

Source data

Source Data Fig. 1

Source data for Fig. 1.

Source Data Fig. 2

Source data for Fig. 2.

Source Data Fig. 3

Source data for Fig. 3.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Wang, Y., Ying, H., Stefanovski, D. et al. Food waste used as a resource can reduce climate and resource burdens in agrifood systems. Nat Food 6, 478–490 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-025-01140-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-025-01140-z

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing Anthropocene

Sign up for the Nature Briefing: Anthropocene newsletter — what matters in anthropocene research, free to your inbox weekly.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing: Anthropocene