Knowledge of food loss and waste (FLW) has improved thanks to the combined effects of countries’ commitments under Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) target 12.3 and more robust measurement processes and methods. That said, there is scope for countries to explore ways in which they may go further:
While most countries have established broad national FLW reduction targets, greater progress on establishing quantifiable targets, with defined baselines and delivery target dates, could be a useful next step.
National FLW strategies are typically implemented as overarching frameworks, and generally rely on soft measures. Countries could consider whether enhancing existing commitments would make sense. Mechanisms to engage with stakeholders and to highlight the economic, social, and environmental benefits of FLW reduction, while considering the costs, could also play an important role.
Countries could also enhance their existing efforts by avoiding policy layering (adding new policy instruments to existing ones).
Countries could also engage in more inclusive and transparent policy dialogue, with the development for example of public-private partnerships, to enhance trust and participation in policy initiatives.
Ex ante and ex post assessments of policy instruments could promote greater coherence and clarity on efficiency and effectiveness. At present, only a few countries undertake regular and dedicated FLW policy impact evaluations, including on cost-effectiveness. This may be related to difficulties in measuring FLW levels and in attributing the impact of FLW policies, as well as the lack of evidence-based mechanisms, timelines, and indicators for policy evaluations. Peer-to peer country exchanges and shared learning could help improve FLW measurement and evaluation practices
Achieving food loss and waste reduction
For over a decade food loss and waste (FLW) has garnered increased international attention. In 2011, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) estimated that about 30% of all food produced is either lost or wasted (FAO, 2011[1]). According to the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), households worldwide wasted over 1 billion meals a day in 2022 (UNEP, 2024[2]).
Countries are committed to the United Nations Sustainable Development Goal (SDGs), including target 12.3 which states that “by 2030 per capita global food waste at the retail and consumer levels should be halved and food losses along production and supply chains, including post-harvest losses should be reduced.” Some countries have gone further and set FLW reduction targets that are more ambitious than those under their global commitments.
Despite progress in measuring FLW, inconsistent definitions and metrics across countries hampers the tracking of progress at the international level. A minority of countries use the FAO Food Loss Index and the UNEP Food Waste Index, limiting the comparability of FLW data across nations.
Reducing FLW is a critical part of the global solution to the triple challenge of feeding a growing world population, ensuring the livelihoods of rural households, and delivering on climate and sustainability commitments (OECD, 2021[3]). OECD quantitative analysis estimates that achieving SDG 12.3 could reduce CO2 equivalent emissions associated with the agricultural sector by 4% and lift 137 million people out of hunger by 2030 (Nenert et al., 2025[4]).
Countries differ in how they approach FLW reduction, influenced by their specific geographical, economic, and social conditions, as well as their legislative systems. For example, the United States developed an alternative hierarchy to the FAO Food Waste Hierarchy to better reflect their national context, taking into account changes in technologies and operational practices for wasted food management in the country.
Efforts to reduce FLW are often hampered by unclear targets, fragmented policy commitments that rely on soft measures, and limited co-ordination across government entities. Few countries include references and targets for FLW reduction in their current Nationally Determined Contributions (NDC) to the Paris Agreement. Less than a third of countries have set up a binding FLW reduction target, instead favouring soft approaches. Additionally, when FLW strategies provide more specific guidelines on how different material streams can be prioritized, these are often not aligned with international standards. Governance structures of FLW strategies can also pose co-ordination challenges where multiple entities are involved.
Few countries set FLW targets with clear delivery dates and baseline levels, reducing the effectiveness of targets as signals to stakeholders across food supply chains. One quarter of the countries included in this study do not specify a target year in their national FLW strategies, and most countries in the study do not mention a baseline year for their targets.
The lack of targeting and the multiplication of policy initiatives may make it difficult for food systems stakeholders to adhere, and commit, to action. The pace of FLW policymaking accelerated with the timelines under international commitments and the introduction of national FLW strategies. In many countries, more than five distinct policy instruments are implemented to tackle FLW, while in about a third of the countries in this study, policy instruments are not tailored to any agro-food supply chain. Household and retail stages receive the strongest level of policy attention (Figure 1), with the implementation of soft policy measures, such as awareness raising campaigns and voluntary collaboration initiatives. Mandatory regulations and fiscal measures are not commonly used. Finally, the layering of policy instruments may make it difficult for food systems stakeholders to adhere and commit to action due to a potential lack of clarity on what they are supposed to do.
It is difficult to identify and scale up effective FLW policy initiatives and measures to maximize benefits for food systems. Only a few countries undertake regular and dedicated FLW policy impact evaluations, including on cost-effectiveness. Additionally, the most commonly evaluated instruments are those that address FLW at the household and food processing stages, leaving out instruments aimed at other critical stages.
Share of countries with at least one policy instrument for a given supply chain stage
Source: OECD Questionnaire on Food Loss and Waste Reduction Policies, 2023.
Policymakers could prioritize the development of a harmonised FLW measurement system to enable better comparability and evidence-based decision-making. For example, Australia, France, and Japan have developed baseline assessments across food supply chain stages, enabling follow-up measurement exercises and progress on tracking.
National FLW strategies could be strengthened through clear, quantifiable targets with defined baselines and delivery dates to increase ambition and accountability. For example, measurement of FLW in Japan has been mandatory since 2000 and carried out through a sampling across the processing, wholesale, retail, and hospitality and food services stages, enabling the creation of quantifiable targets over time and prompting private sector actors to set FLW ambitions.
Policy implementation could focus on coherence, avoiding the layering of new instruments over existing ones, while promoting stakeholder engagement and cost-effectiveness. For example, France has revised its National Pact to Fight Food Waste through legislation, widening the scope to cover more stages and business types, while also addressing food insecurity. Australia’s approach to reducing FLW emphasises private sector-led stakeholder engagement, which allows food industry stakeholders to tackle FLW reduction while pursuing economic benefits such as valorisation of previously overlooked resources.
Countries could establish regular monitoring and evaluation mechanisms for FLW policies to assess their impact on actual FLW reduction and also economic, social, and environmental outcomes. For example, Japan conducts regular evaluations of its FLW policies, such as the annual Survey on Attitude and Awareness in Consumer Life, to assess consumer behaviour and the effectiveness of FLW initiatives.
OECD (2025), "Beyond Food Loss and Waste Reduction Targets: Translating Reduction Ambitions Into Policy Outcomes", OECD Food, Agriculture and Fisheries Paper, No. 214, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/59cf6c95-en. This report provides a comprehensive review of the food loss and waste (FLW) policy environment, drawing on data collected by the OECD from representatives of 42 national ministries and from the European Commission to support cross-country dialogue and accelerate the implementation of more effective evidence-based and context-specific FLW policies.
A Stocktaking of Food Loss and Waste Policies: Australia. This case study describes and analyses the national FLW policy-making process in Australia.
A Stocktaking of Food Loss and Waste Policies: France. This case study describes and analyses the national FLW policy-making process in France.
A Stocktaking of Food Loss and Waste Policies: Japan. This case study describes and analyses the national FLW policy-making process in Japan.
References
[1] FAO (2011), Global Food Losses and Food Waste- Extent, Causes and Prevention, FAO.
[4] Nenert, C. et al. (2025), “The potential effects of reducing food loss and waste: Impacts on the triple challenge and cost-benefits analysis”, OECD Food, Agriculture and Fisheries Papers, No. 222, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/bd2aedc6-en.
[3] OECD (2021), Making Better Policies for Food Systems, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/ddfba4de-en.
[5] OECD/FAO (2024), OECD-FAO Agricultural Outlook 2024-2033, OECD Publishing, Paris/Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, https://doi.org/10.1787/4c5d2cfb-en.
[2] UNEP (2024), Food Waste Index Report 2024. Think Eat Save: Tracking Progress to Halve Global Food Waste, https://www.unep.org/resources/publication/food-waste-index-report-2024.
Contact
Céline Giner (✉ Celine.GINER@oecd.org)