Whether customers are pleased to hear it or not, firms are selling ‘upcycled’ food to tackle food waste. Food with ingredients that were saved from the waste heap via verifiable supply chains is said to be ‘upcycled’. The term originated in the US, though it’s also been adopted on this side of the Atlantic.
This definition includes byproducts from food and drink such as spent grains left over from beer manufacturing, or apple pulp that doesn’t make it into juice.
Why upcycle food in the first place? The US Environmental Protection Agency rates it as just as effective as donating or redistributing food to restaurants and shelters for reducing the environmental impact of the food system. Wasted food can generate greenhouse gases such as methane if left to rot in landfills.
So it’s good for the planet if ingredients that would not have gone to human consumption are transformed into new food-grade products. But just how good exactly?
How much of a product contains upcycled ingredients will influence its sustainability credentials. If they are listed at the beginning of the ingredients then that indicates a large percentage of inclusion. Far down at the bottom suggests a smaller percentage.
According to the US upcycled food certification standard, a product only needs to contain a minimum of 10% upcycled inputs by weight in order to be certified as upcycled. This may only make a slight difference to a single product’s overall sustainability.
Compare it with organic food. Both in the US and in the EU, a product must contain a minimum of 95% of certified organic ingredients to be labelled organic.
While I believe that attempts to include upcycled ingredients in food formulations should be encouraged, it is important to have rules in place.
In the EU, upcycled foods are not regulated and there are no certification standards, though some product packaging may claim it contains upcycled ingredients. Consumers might buy a product with a sprinkling of upcycled ingredients thinking that it is a more sustainable choice.
A loaf of bread recently sold in Tesco was reported to contain 2.5% spent grain by weight. In other cases, the level of inclusion appears to be quite substantial. Granola sold in Ireland claims 30% spent grain from brewers, but it is not clearly stated in the ingredient list.
Often, consumers are asked to pay more for upcycled food, even though it contains ingredients that would have otherwise gone to waste. This is because the producers are often small start-ups with high production costs that they must recoup with high prices.
If sustainability claims are at stake, and if consumers are asked to pay more for upcycled foods, it is important to prevent deceptive marketing that could present products as more sustainable than they actually are.
One way to do so is by carrying out a life-cycle assessment, a measurement of a product’s environmental impact from its production to its disposal. The manufacturer could do this to reassure the consumer and backing up any claims with evidence.
If we want upcycled foods to become more common, and so reduce waste, we have to make sure consumers aren’t being misled. If consumers trust, value and understand these products, they are more likely to succeed in the market.