Methods of Managing Food Waste: Systematic Literature Review with Harmonization 1 Methods of Managing Food Waste: A Systematic Literature Review with Harmonization Pete Pasterz, Oregon Department of Environmental Quality Prepared for West Coast Climate & Materials Management Forum’s webinar : Funding and Managing Organics and Recyclable Materials to Reduce GHG Emissions October 21, 2014

Methods of Managing Food Waste: Systematic Literature Review with Harmonization Background Research commissioned by Oregon Department of Environmental Quality; funded by Metro (Portland) Not an Original LCA Project results can be found at: foodwaste.aspx foodwaste.aspx 2

Methods of Managing Food Waste: Systematic Literature Review with Harmonization Background Primary options for managing food waste: 3 Prevention/ avoidance Aerobic composting Anaerobic digestion In-sink grinder Landfill

Methods of Managing Food Waste: Systematic Literature Review with Harmonization 4 Non-Harmonized Climate Impacts (# of studies) MT CO2e per MT food waste

Methods of Managing Food Waste: Systematic Literature Review with Harmonization 5 Non-Harmonized Energy Impacts (# of studies) GJ per MT food waste

Methods of Managing Food Waste: Systematic Literature Review with Harmonization Systematic Literature Review 6 Criteria for Excluding LCA from Harmonization LCA Study Counts Reviewed LCA Studies147 Not an LCA40 Review Study of LCAs16 No Assessment of Food Waste Treatments8 Functional Unit Not Food Waste Based36 System Boundary Not Clear0 Input-Output Data Not Detailed12 Duplicative7 Studies Harmonized28

Methods of Managing Food Waste: Systematic Literature Review with Harmonization Harmonization Harmonization across studies addressed inconsistencies such as: 7 Carbon storage Global warming potentials Impacts of collection Impacts of facility construction Displacement of fertilizer, peat, and grid electricity

Methods of Managing Food Waste: Systematic Literature Review with Harmonization Harmonization Harmonization also adjusted study results to reflect Oregon-specific conditions: 8 Carbon footprint of electricity offsets Landfill gas capture efficiency Utilization of compost and digestate (and displacement of synthetic fertilizers and peat)

Methods of Managing Food Waste: Systematic Literature Review with Harmonization 9 Ranges of Pre- and Post-Harmonized Climate Impacts (# of studies) [mean net impact] MT CO2e per MT food waste Aerobic Compost (25) [-0.05] [-0.17] [0.03] [0.52] Anaerobic Digestion (10) In-Sink Grinder (5) Landfill (15)

Methods of Managing Food Waste: Systematic Literature Review with Harmonization 10 Harmonized Climate Impacts – Study Means (# of studies) [mean net impact] MT CO2e per MT food waste Aerobic Compost (25) [-0.05] [-0.17] [0.03] [0.52] Anaerobic Digestion (10) In-Sink Grinder (5) Landfill (15)

Methods of Managing Food Waste: Systematic Literature Review with Harmonization 11 Harmonized Climate Impacts – Study Means (# of studies) [mean net impact] MT CO2e per MT food waste Aerobic Compost (25) [-0.05] [-0.17] [0.03] [0.52] Anaerobic Digestion (10) In-Sink Grinder (5) Landfill (15)

Methods of Managing Food Waste: Systematic Literature Review with Harmonization 12 Ranges of Pre- and Post-Harmonized Energy Impacts (# of studies) [mean net impact] GJ per MT food waste Aerobic Compost (10) [1.23] [0.29] [-0.32] [0.60] Anaerobic Digestion (1) In-Sink Grinder (3) Landfill (5)

Methods of Managing Food Waste: Systematic Literature Review with Harmonization 13 Harmonized Energy Impacts – Study Means (# of studies) [mean net impact] GJ per MT food waste Aerobic Compost (10) [1.23] [0.29] [-0.32] [0.60] Anaerobic Digestion (1) In-Sink Grinder (3) Landfill (5)

Methods of Managing Food Waste: Systematic Literature Review with Harmonization 14 Soil Impacts Soil carbon benefits Fertilizer replacement Water conservation Yield increase

Methods of Managing Food Waste: Systematic Literature Review with Harmonization Technology Rating for Soils 15 Soil carbon Fertilizer replacement Water conservation Yield increase Aerobic composting Anaerobic digestion5545 In-sink grinder2.5 2 Landfill = optimal benefit (relative to other options); 0 = no benefit

Methods of Managing Food Waste: Systematic Literature Review with Harmonization Conclusions 16 Harmonization narrowed some ranges of results  Significant variability within practices. Generally:  Anaerobic digestion rates well on all three criteria (GHGs, energy, soils)  Aerobic compost rates well on soils, moderate on GHGs, poorly on energy  In-sink grinder rates well on energy, moderate on GHGs, soils  Landfill rates well on energy but poorly on GHGs, soils Transportation (long-haul) not very significant Benefits are driven by displacement, which may offer opportunities for improvement

Methods of Managing Food Waste: Systematic Literature Review with Harmonization Selected Limitations and Future Research Needs: General lack of LCAs on food process technologies Lack of LCAs which assess soil quality and productivity LCAs did not assess primary energy demand implications of energy inputs and outputs LCAs use 100 year GWP time period-probably not meaningful for methane which has a 12 year life in the atmosphere 17

Methods of Managing Food Waste: Systematic Literature Review with Harmonization Thank You! Pete Pasterz (503)