Food wholesalers, importers and retailers selling own-brand products could take financial responsibility for bio-waste prevention and collection under an extended producer responsibility (EPR) scheme proposed in a new study by Zero Waste Europe (ZWE) and the Bio-based Industries Consortium.

The study argues that shifting part of the financial and operational responsibility from municipalities and taxpayers to businesses that place food on the market could help address the EU's food waste collection shortfall and support achievement of the bloc's 2030 food waste reduction targets.

Currently, food waste accounts for 8-10 per cent of global greenhouse gas emissions, while EU citizens generate about 130 kg of food waste per person annually. Despite mandatory separate bio-waste collection coming into force across EU member states in January 2024, capture rates for kitchen waste stand at just 26 per cent, with an estimated 45 million tonnes ending up in landfill or incineration.

The EU's binding food waste reduction targets, introduced through the 2025 amendment of the Waste Framework Directive, require member states to achieve a 30 per cent per capita reduction at household, retail and restaurant level, and a 10 per cent reduction at manufacturing level, by the end of 2030.

Proposed EPR scheme

Under the proposed Extended Producer Responsibility for Food Products (EPRFP), solid food products likely to end up in bio-waste collection, along with used cooking oils, would fall within scope. Drinks and other liquid foods would be excluded on the basis that they are not typically part of bio-waste separate collection.

The report identifies wholesalers and importers placing food products on the market as the primary actors responsible for EPR fees, with retailers also covered for sales of their own "white label" products. The hotel, restaurant and catering (HORECA) sector, small-scale producers selling directly to consumers, and food producers and processors whose waste is managed outside municipal systems would be excluded.

According to the study, approximately 50 per cent of food waste prevention and bio-waste collection costs could be covered by EPR fees from wholesalers, importers and retailers, with the remainder funded by citizens and the HORECA sector through existing waste taxes. This estimate assumes 75 per cent of food products are solid rather than liquid, and that 70 per cent of food placed on the market passes through wholesalers, importers and retailers' own brands.

The study proposes a "comprehensive coverage" model that would fund prevention programmes including food redistribution schemes and consumer education, as well as collection, treatment and monitoring activities. This approach contrasts with a "core services" model that would cover only collection and recycling costs.

Economic barriers

The report draws on findings from the EU-funded LIFE BIOBEST project, which identified economic barriers as primary obstacles to bio-waste separate collection across member states. These include lack of financial incentives for local authorities, collection costs that exceed those for residual waste, and insufficient resources for treatment infrastructure.

The report states that municipalities lack financial incentives to establish prevention and separate collection schemes, with overhead costs deterring them from adopting necessary measures.

Previous research from Zero Waste Europe and BIC found that only 26 per cent of food waste generated across the EU27 is successfully captured, representing a current annual collection of 15.1 million tonnes against a theoretical potential of 60 million tonnes.

Joan Marc Simon, Founder of Zero Waste Europe, said: "Now that we have EU targets on food waste and the obligation to separately collect bio-waste, we need the economic instruments to meet them. EPR for food products can mobilise the funding necessary to reduce food waste and increase separate collection of organics."

Dirk Carrez, Executive Director of BIC, added: "Europe needs to look at all options to use the untapped potential of bio-waste. EPR for food products can help to increase the availability of bio-waste, including for biomaterials. Turning such waste into a feedstock for the bio-based industries creates circular loops."

Implementation

The study argues that setting a target for food waste within residual waste streams, as proposed by the LIFE BIOBEST project, would provide the metric against which EPRFP obligations would be measured. This approach aligns with existing EPR systems that require producer responsibility organisations to achieve specific recycling targets.

The report identifies potential disadvantages including administrative complexity, risk of inconsistent application across member states, and concerns that an EPR fee used solely for treatment could make it easier for producers to send edible surplus food to waste management rather than through donation networks.

To address these challenges, ZWE and the Bio-based Industries Consortium recommend clear definitions, robust enforcement, transparent governance structures, and harmonised criteria at EU level for definitions, target-setting and monitoring.

The study notes that Greece is currently the only EU member state considering EPRFP, specifically for the HORECA sector. The report calls for broader consideration of the approach given the new legally binding food waste prevention targets and the role bio-waste plays in the EU's bioeconomy strategy.