The disruptive and irreversible changes that food waste has on our lives as a result of the alteration of Earth’s natural system highlights why environmental impact could be so devastating. The 4 factors listed have been identified to have suffered directly from the effects of food wastage in no hierarchical order.

• Climate Change

The heavy dependence on the use of fossil-fuel energy such as petroleum in almost every aspect of food production releases carbon dioxide and other greenhouses gases (GHG). Moreover, discarded food in the landfill releases methane gas as it decomposes anaerobically. These gases create a blanket and trap heat within the Earth’s atmosphere. Over the past few decades, levels of such gases have been rising steadily, contributing the phenomenon known as Global Warming. As the Earth overheats, a whole slew of devastating impact follows.

Carbon footprints,” the total set of greenhouse gases we individually cause,” is used to calculate the effects of food wastage. It can start with food production all the way to the decomposition of food waste.

The figure above depicts clearly the total amount of GHG emitted by food wastage, further clarifying the idea that throwing food away is not harmless as we perceive. The estimated global carbon footprint is at a value of 3.3 G tonnes of equivalent carbon dioxide. This effectively place food waste as the 3rd major climate change contributor. If this continues, food wastage can have very grave impact on the life on Earth.

• Water Footprint

The production of food involves more than 70% of global freshwater withdrawal and any increased production and consumption will likely result in more water being used. Consumptive water use is the focus as addressed by the water footprint approach. Consumptive water use refers to water that is removed from available supplies (i.e., oceans, lakes, reservoirs etc), without a return to the water source. More specifically, the sub-component blue water is the consumptive use of irrigation water taken from ground or surface water, is calculated. In 2007, the world contributed a total of 250 km³ worth of blue water footprint from food wastage – that could fill the MacRitchie Reservoir about 60,000 times!

According to the FAO, 92% of water footprint of humanity is credited to the consumption of agricultural products. This figure will continue to rise due to a rising human population that would demand for more crops. The need to ensure that food is safe for human consumption will result in more water being used during the production phase. This asserts the significance of global water footprint on the environment.

In addition, cereals and fruits are the 2 main contributors to groundwater consumption (52 and 18% respectively). This suggests that crops with a lower yield, such as cereals results in more water consumption than crops with high yield. The production of animal products also have a higher consumptive water use than crops, driving the idea that calories, protein and fibre obtain from crops seems to be a more viable option. Water is also used to process uneaten food, where 12-15% of blue water is utilised in the later production and distribution phases. All these continue to add onto the idea that the sustainability of life with be greatly impacted with the loss of the finite resource as we continue to exploit it as explained by the theory of the Tragedy of the Commons.

• Land Usage

Land Occupation refers to the evaluation of land surface used for the production of food that are not consumed. 1.5 billion hectares of land has been dedicated to produce unconsumed food, a surface that is much larger than Canada and India combined! 78% of food waste land occupation can be attributed to the production of protein and dairy even though meat and milk contributes to only 11% of the food waste.

Intensive farming and land occupation is bound to have serious ramification on the soil and the environment. Deforestation, diminishing soil fertility, desertification and the loss of top soil are just but the few of the aftermath. Landfills causes unnecessary pressures on the soil, cutting the flow of oxygen, and produce harmful methane gases that plays a part in air pollution as the food decays. Eventual land degradation further limits our use of land for constructive development in conjunction with allocated land for landfills.

• Biodiversity

The impact on biodiversity is more significant from the agricultural production phase than the effects due to unused food parts. However, the effects on biodiversity often reside on the sub-regional level, indicating that the impact on biodiversity are not as direct compared other categories of environmental impact.

Crop production is responsible for 66% of threats to species and habitat loss. Forest are being deforested to reclaim land for agricultural production. Often, many animals are being stripped off their natural habitat, while some others are killed in this process. More often than not, terrestrial biodiversity is substantially affected in tropics due to the favorable climate and the providence of greatest scope of increasing agricultural production. A picture of the Northern Spotted Owl against the backdrop of a bright fresh cut forest reflects the poor conservation of biodiversity life. The abandonment of deforested land may lead to further biodiversity decline through reductions in habitat heterogeneity.

.

Overfishing and damaged fisheries resources affect marine biodiversity. The overexploitation, depletion, and recovery of marine fish stocked increased to 32% in 2008, the highest record in history. Also, the overexploitation of fishes causes significant collateral damage by destroying seafloor habitats. 70% of by-catch of unwanted species is discarded as waste at sea. This causes transmission of disease and the release of pollutants in the aquaculture, creating continuous harm to the marine ecosystem.

Threats to biodiversity are found to be higher in developing countries, where crops are responsible for 72% of species threat and livestock production is responsible for 34% of species threat. The production of food crops seems to have approximately twice as much impact on biodiversity life, with bird species being more vulnerable to food production activities. This speaks to the idea that food waste resulting from farming and the initial production phase is more commonly associated with developing countries.