About 30-40% of the produce we grow ends up wasted. This is a massive inefficiency in the food system. It occurs at every level, from the farm to the end user, and for a variety of reasons. This translates to enough food worldwide to feed 1.6 billion people. We also have to consider the energy that goes into growing, transporting, and disposing of this wasted food. Not all uneaten food winds up in landfills. About 30% of the food fed to animals is food waste. Some food waste ends up in compost which is used as fertilizer. This still is inefficient, but at least it is recycled.

There is a huge opportunity for increased efficiency here, one that can save money, reduce energy demand, reduce the carbon footprint of our food infrastructure, and reduce the land necessary to meet our nutritional needs. Increased efficiency will be critical as our populations grows (it is estimated to likely peak at about 10 billion people). But there is no one cause of food waste, and therefore there is no one solution. It will take a concerted effort in many areas to minimize food waste, and make the best use of the food that does not get eaten by people.

One method is to slow food spoilage. The longer food lasts after it has been harvested, the less likely it is to be wasted due to spoilage. Delaying spoilage also makes it easier to get food from the farm to the consumer, because there is more time for transport. And delayed spoilage, if sufficient, may reduce dependence on the cold chain – an expensive and energy dense process by which food must be maintained in refrigerated conditions for its entire life from the farm until used by the consumer.

A recent study explores one method for delaying spoilage – injecting small amounts of melatonin into plants through silk microneedles. The melatonin regulates the plants stress response and slows spoilage. In this study they looked at pak choy. The treated plants had a shelf-life (time in which it can be sold) from 4 days to 8 without refrigeration, and with refrigeration shelf life was extended from 15 days to 25. This was a lab proof-of-concept, and so the process would need to be industrialized and made cost-effective enough to be viable. It also would not necessarily be needed in every situation, but could be used in areas with a cold chain is very difficult or expensive, or transportation is slow. This could therefore not only reduce waste, but improve food availability in challenging areas.

Perhaps the most effective way to extend shelf life is through irradiation, a proven and cost-effective method. This exposes food to either gamma rays (from cobalt-60 sources), electron beams, or x-rays, killing most microorganisms and delaying ripening or sprouting. This is completely safe – the resulting food is not radioactive. The radiation just passed through it. There is no significant difference in nutritional value and only subtle changes to taste (compared to the effects of pasteurization on milk). The effectiveness depends on the food item being irradiated – fresh produce may last for an additional week, meat for an additional month, and dried goods for months or even years. This process not only reduces food waste and reliance on the cold chain, it reduces foodborne illness as well.

The main limitation of irradiation is public acceptance. Studies show that between 40-50% of people would accept irradiated food, but this number increases to 80-90% with education. In the US irradiated food is considered not organic – yet another perfectly safe technology opposed by the counterproductive organic lobby. Part of the problem is mandated labeling that mostly scares rather than informs consumers.

These same problems, of course, exist for another way to extend shelf-life – genetic engineering. There is already approval for GMO apples, bananas, strawberries, tomatoes, and potatoes with extended shelf life. GMO produce is perfectly safe, something I have written about extensively. All of the tropes spread by the anti-GMO / organic lobby are false or grossly misleading. Meanwhile this technology can dramatically increase the efficiency of our food infrastructure, which is the best way to limit the environmental footprint of our food system. It is ironic that a group, organic farmers and consumers, that state they are interested in helping the environment are directly harming it, and represent one of the greatest threats to the environment. By limiting the use of GMOs they are effectively increasing land use for agriculture (which is the biggest negative effect agriculture has on the environment) and blocking the most effective methods to limit food waste.

They argue that the point of opposing GMOs is to limit pesticide use, but this is false one two main levels. First, GMO technology is not just about making pesticide-tolerate cultivars, that is one application. It makes no sense to oppose a technology because you object to one specific application. But there is also no evidence that pesticide tolerant GMOs increase overall pesticide use. They increase the use of the specific pesticide to which the plants are tolerant, but decrease the use of usually more toxic pesticides. Also, some GMOs decreased pesticide use by creating plants that are inherently pest resistant. Further, organic farmers do use pesticides – just “natural” ones that we cannot assume are safe, and are generally less effective, and therefore have to be used more frequently and is larger amounts. This is what happens when you substitute logic and evidence with ideology (such as the appeal-to-nature fallacy).

Reducing food waste may not be sexy, but this is an important area that deserves our attention. It is a huge opportunity to increase efficiency, reduce disease, improve nutrition, and decrease the environmental footprint of agriculture.