Defra, UK - Science Searchrandd.defra.gov.uk/Document.aspx?Document=11313_EVI… · Web viewGeneral Enquiries on the form should be made to: Defra, Procurements and Commercial Function

General Enquiries on the form should be made to:Defra, Procurements and Commercial Function (Evidence Procurement Team)E-mail: [email protected]

Evidence Project Final Report

EVID4 Evidence Project Final Report (Rev. 06/11) Page 1 of 30

mailto:[email protected]

NoteIn line with the Freedom of Information Act 2000, Defra aims to place the results of its completed research projects in the public domain wherever possible. The Evidence Project Final Report is designed to capture the information on the results and outputs of Defra-funded research in a format that is easily publishable through the Defra websiteAn Evidence Project Final Report must be completed for all projects.

This form is in Word format and the boxes may be expanded, as appropriate.

ACCESS TO INFORMATIONThe information collected on this form will be stored electronically and may be sent to any part of Defra, or to individual researchers or organisations outside Defra for the purposes of reviewing the project. Defra may also disclose the information to any outside organisation acting as an agent authorised by Defra to process final research reports on its behalf. Defra intends to publish this form on its website, unless there are strong reasons not to, which fully comply with exemptions under the Environmental Information Regulations or the Freedom of Information Act 2000.Defra may be required to release information, including personal data and commercial information, on request under the Environmental Information Regulations or the Freedom of Information Act 2000. However, Defra will not permit any unwarranted breach of confidentiality or act in contravention of its obligations under the Data Protection Act 1998. Defra or its appointed agents may use the name, address or other details on your form to contact you in connection with occasional customer research aimed at improving the processes through which Defra works with its contractors.

Project identification

1. Defra Project code FO0218

2. Project title

Recycling of catering & food waste

3. Contractororganisation(s)

Food and Environment Research AgencySand HuttonYorkYO411LZ

54. Total Defra project costs £ 80,000(agreed fixed price)

5. Project: start date................ 01 April 2011

end date................. 31 December 2012


6. It is Defra’s intention to publish this form. Please confirm your agreement to do so......................................................YES √ NO NO (a) When preparing Evidence Project Final Reports contractors should bear in mind that Defra intends that

they be made public. They should be written in a clear and concise manner and represent a full account of the research project which someone not closely associated with the project can follow.Defra recognises that in a small minority of cases there may be information, such as intellectual property or commercially confidential data, used in or generated by the research project, which should not be disclosed. In these cases, such information should be detailed in a separate annex (not to be published) so that the Evidence Project Final Report can be placed in the public domain. Where it is impossible to complete the Final Report without including references to any sensitive or confidential data, the information should be included and section (b) completed. NB: only in exceptional circumstances will Defra expect contractors to give a "No" answer.In all cases, reasons for withholding information must be fully in line with exemptions under the Environmental Information Regulations or the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

(b) If you have answered NO, please explain why the Final report should not be released into public domain

Executive Summary7. The executive summary must not exceed 2 sides in total of A4 and should be understandable to the

intelligent non-scientist. It should cover the main objectives, methods and findings of the research, together with any other significant events and options for new work.

Food waste (defined here as food and drink waste including catering waste and former foodstuffs which may or may not contain products of animal origin) is a potentially valuable source of energy, protein, minerals and vitamins for feeding animals but the concerns over the spread of animal and human diseases, following the outbreak of foot and mouth disease in 2001, and concerns over the risks of spread of prion-induced diseases such as BSE, have led to the banning of feeding catering waste and certain former foodstuffs to animals in the EU. Under the current Animal By-products (ABP) and TSE regulations selected former foodstuffs which can be kept separate from ABP within the food production and retail sectors are permitted to be fed to animals, for example, bakery goods, brewers’ wastes and fruit and vegetables. However, processes utilising former foodstuffs only recycle a small proportion of the total amount of food waste (c.4% of the total estimated as potentially recoverable). Currently only food waste from food manufacturing and retailers that does not contain and has not been in contact with meat or fish and certain other products of animal origin are permitted to be used as animal feed. The majority of food waste (c.75%) is mixed and could therefore not be separated into non-ABP and ABP waste. Initiatives to utilise more of this waste to produce biogas and digestate using the anaerobic digestion (AD) process would be more sustainable than consigning it to landfill, but the possibility of feeding the waste to animals should also be investigated as a potentially more sustainable use. The aim of this project was to produce a scoping review of the current situation regarding disposal and recycling of food waste and explore the feeding of food waste to farmed animals as a future option. This project builds on previous analyses of management of food waste and compares them with a hypothetical situation where under certain assumptions a wider range of food waste would be recycled into the livestock sector. The study aims purely to draw together existing evidence to provide an initial comparative picture of management options for food waste. The review assessed particularly the human and animal health risks, sustainability and economic viability of two options for recycling, animal feed production and AD, compared to current disposal to landfill.

Human & animal health: Prior to the prohibition of feeding of food waste to animals that contained, or had been in contact with ABP (up to 2001), legislation required that any waste containing meat or meat-products was cooked (100°C for 1 hour). The review carried out here has focused on this treatment as a method to eliminate pathogens from food waste. Data indicate that this treatment will be


effective against non-spore-forming bacterial pathogens (e.g. Salmonella) and most viral pathogens, which do not have forms resistant to prolonged high temperatures. It may also be effective against some spore-forming bacterial species such as Bacillus anthracis and B. cereus, as there is evidence to indicate that high (> 6 log10) reductions in numbers can be obtained. Against other spore-forming species such as Clostridium botulinum, a reduction of > 5 log10 may not be guaranteed. Also, against viral agents, e.g. FMDV that may contaminate bone tissue or meat on the bone, it is not certain that this treatment may be effective when they are located within these tissues. It would not be effective against prions. The information on heat-resistance presented in Annex 6 has been acquired through a standard review of available literature; however the data obtained has not been compiled to facilitate a structured risk assessment using established methodology. Therefore, to fully define the effectiveness of this treatment regime, particularly against spore-producing pathogens, it is recommended that a formal systematic literature review and meta-analysis is carried out, e.g. according to the PRISMA Guidelines (http://www.prisma-statement.org). Subsequently it may be prudent to validate the data obtained by experimental studies of natural or model food waste. Data from that work may then feed into a risk assessment model developed using established methodology (e.g. OIE or Codex Alimentarius).

Economics: Traditionally many pig and poultry producers have used food waste as animal feed, and it is likely that they may become increasingly attracted to seek to use food waste as feed as the price of conventional arable based animal feeds increase. An important factor in making that decision is the feeding conversion rate (i.e., ratio between weight of feed and weight gain). In cases where the food waste is of low quality and the conversion rate of the resulting feed is low (low nutritional value), the economic assessment carried out here indicates that the use of animal feed derived from food waste would only be justified if its price is low. In fact, if the lower nutritional value means, for example, that the feeding period needs to be extended (i.e. opportunity costs are incurred), then even if the food waste feed was fully subsidised its use would only be profitable if the total production costs do not increase significantly. If feed derived from food waste costs the same as conventional feed, then the enterprise is shown to be less profitable, due to the opportunity costs.

This study shows that, overall, the benefits associated with both AD and food waste processed as animal feed (PFW) outweigh the costs involved with landfill. Interestingly, the societal savings attainable under PFW and AD appear to be relatively equivalent, both around £24 per tonne diverted from landfill. However, there is an apparent difference in the range of potential savings and there is more uncertainty with the benefits stemming from AD compared to PFW (wider distribution in the Monte Carlo simulation results). Both are likely to provide positive societal benefits, but there is a small probability of the benefits with AD being substantially higher compared to PFW. Equally though, compared to PFW these benefits may not be realised under AD, i.e. there is a low probability of a loss and an equally low probability of very large benefits from AD. Nevertheless, societal benefits can be achieved by diverting food waste from landfill to either AD or animal feed.

Sustainability: The assessment carried out in this study considered different categories of food waste (bakery, fruit and vegetables, dairy and meat/fish containing waste) and compared animal feed production with AD as management routes in terms of various sustainability indicators. Results indicate that when dealing with food waste requiring extensive pre-processing (e.g. non-segregated food waste or food waste carrying high health risks) the cost and energy associated with processing into animal feed potentially make this option less sustainable than direct treatment and conversion into energy by AD. However, for certain categories of food waste not requiring very highly energy demanding processes recycling into feed for pigs and poultry may be the most sustainable option. Clearly segregated waste streams need to be established at the source of the waste to facilitate the processing for either animal feed or for treatment by AD. Where an ABP processing or rendering step is required, AD is a more sustainable means of treatment. The re-use of waste vegetable, fruit, dairy and bakery items as a macerated or pulped feedstock for the pig and poultry sector has high environmental sustainability where there is a local requirement for the material. Further quantitative data is required to improve the robustness of this sustainability assessment. With appropriate co-operation between animal feedstuff producers and the AD industry it should be possible to identify a combined approach that utilises the food waste stream sustainably. The feasibility of this approach would need to be linked to a clear food waste segregation to avoid potential contamination of food waste that does not contain animal derived material and in this instance animal feed production provides a sustainable option as does AD.


Overall Conclusions:The project has produced some preliminary conclusions as detailed below. Additionally, recommendations for further research to confirm these conclusions were also made.

Some segregated food waste, which are not ABP, and also certain ABPs are already used in animal feed and are environmentally and economically sustainable. More of these could be used if changes in legislation were made, for example, former foodstuffs containing poultry-sourced ABP could be fed to pigs. However, there is a need for more work to identify the amounts of this type of material available for recycling so that a proper assessment of the economic, health and environmental impacts of each option can be done. A structured risk assessment needs to be done.

In this project, rendering was used as an example of the type of process that could be used to treat these wastes for animal feed production as the process eliminates pathogens and generates separated protein and fat stable products suitable for compound feed formulation. However, this type of process may not be required for all types of waste. A survey of wastes will be required to find out the prevalent type of hazardous microbiological contamination and hence the most appropriate processing methods for each waste stream.

From an economic perspective, the societal savings attainable by recycling food waste into animal feed or through AD appear to be relatively equivalent, although there is an apparent difference in the range of potential savings and there is more uncertainty with the benefits stemming from AD compared to animal feed. However, this depends on the quality of the feed produced; if the nutritional value is low these benefits may not be realised.

Further research by the scientific community is required to generate quantitative data specific to the UK to enable a robust comparison of different food waste recovery routes and improve the subjective ‘qualitative’ nature of the current assessment. There is a particular need for more accurate data on volumes and types of waste available from manufacturing and retail premises. There is also a need for more data on suitable animal feed production processes to allow the assessment of environmental impacts. Quantitative data focused on specific types of waste processed by specific methods would enable robust assessments of health, environmental and economic risks

If it is considered that certain food waste should be re-introduced into the animal feed industry, particularly if mixed waste is used, it is likely that further research will be required including pilot studies to demonstrate suitable production processes and the level of benefits achievable by utilising this resource. This could be combined with a study on the social issues involved in its re-introduction. Public acceptance of food waste derived animal feed is likely to be an issue. Scientific data demonstrating safety and sustainability would help to inform public opinion.

Project Report to Defra8. As a guide this report should be no longer than 20 sides of A4. This report is to provide Defra with details of

the outputs of the research project for internal purposes; to meet the terms of the contract; and to allow Defra to publish details of the outputs to meet Environmental Information Regulation or Freedom of Information obligations. This short report to Defra does not preclude contractors from also seeking to publish a full, formal scientific report/paper in an appropriate scientific or other journal/publication. Indeed, Defra actively encourages such publications as part of the contract terms. The report to Defra should include: the objectives as set out in the contract; the extent to which the objectives set out in the contract have been met; details of methods used and the results obtained, including statistical analysis (if appropriate); a discussion of the results and their reliability; the main implications of the findings; possible future work; and

any action resulting from the research (e.g. IP, Knowledge Exchange).


Authors:Christine Henry, Rosario Romero, Derek Tomlinson, Richard Thwaites, Nigel Cook, Fera.Mike Taylor, Vparst. Nnenna Agbasiere, Benjamin Briere de L’isle, Andrea Petrolati & Jane Turrell,, WRc.Danny Campbell, QUB.

ContentsGlossary 51. Objectives of the project 62. Background to the study 73. Completion of the project objectives 9Objective 1. To review current procedures for managing food waste taking into account best practice in the UK and internationally.

10

Objective 2. To assess the amount and nature of food waste available for re-use. 13Objective 3. To review the processes currently used for collecting, moving and treating food waste both in the UK and internationally.

17

Objective 4. To review the sustainability of current processes for food waste disposal compared with its potential use in animal feed particularly in terms of environmental factors

18

Objective 5. To assess the economics of using food waste in animal feed compared with existing information on current disposal methods.

19

Objective 6. To assess the potential risks to human and animal health that might arise from the use of food waste in animal feed.

20

Summary of the options for sustainable and safe use of food and catering waste. 22Conclusions 24Recommendations for future research 24References 26Acknowledgements 26

Glossary of terms used in the report:

Catering waste All food waste, including used cooking oil, originating in restaurants, catering facilities and kitchens, including central kitchens and household kitchens. (From the Defra guidance on Regulation (EC) 1069/2009 and accompanying implementing Regulation (EC) 142/2011, enforced in England by the Animal By-Products (Enforcement) (England) Regulations 2011: http://archive.defra.gov.uk/foodfarm/byproducts/documents/abp-guidance-110703.pdf

Former foodstuffs Foodstuffs originating from retailers, distribution premises, wholesale, etc (products which are no longer intended for human consumption for commercial reasons or due to problems of manufacturing or packaging defects or other defects which do not present any risk to humans or animals).

Food waste Food waste in this report means food and drink waste. It includes catering waste and former foodstuffs, and may or may not contain products of animal origin.

Domestic waste Food waste originated in households.Industrial waste Includes food waste generated by industries such as food, drink, tobacco,

textiles, power and utilities, chemicals, metal, manufacturing, machinery and equipment, etc.

Commercial waste Includes food waste generated by businesses such as retail and wholesale, hotels and catering, education, public administration, transport

Recycling Food Waste Project No FO0218

Page 6 of 30Report to Defra

and storage and other services.



Waste treatment Recovery or disposal operations, including preparation prior to recovery or disposal.

Waste recovery Any operation the principal result of which is waste serving a useful purpose by replacing other materials which would otherwise have been used to fulfil a particular function, or waste being prepared to fulfil that function, in the plant or in the wider economy.

Waste recycling Any recovery operation by which waste materials are reprocessed into products, materials or substances whether for the original or other purposes. It includes the reprocessing of organic material but does not include energy recovery and the reprocessing into materials that are to be used as fuels or for backfilling operations.

Waste disposal Any operation which is not recovery even where the operation has as a secondary consequence the reclamation of substances or energy.

Gate fees Charge levied upon a given quantity of waste received at a waste processing facility.

Land recovery Reclamation, restoration or improvement of land as substitute for virgin materials.

ABP Animal by-productsABPR Animal by-products regulationsAD Anaerobic digestionBSE Bovine spongiform encephalopathyBSI British Standards InstitutionCHP Combined heat and powerCLO Compost-like outputEC European communityEU European UnionEWC European Waste CatalogueHACCP Hazard analysis and critical control pointIBA Incinerator bottom ashIVC In-vessel compostingMBT Mechanical and biological treatmentMRF Material reprocessing facilitiesMSW Municipal solid wastePAH Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbonsPAS Publicly Available SpecificationsPCB Polychlorinated biphenylsPCDD/F Polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins/furansQMS Quality Management SystemTSE Transmissible spongiform encephalopathy VTEC Verocytotoxin-producing E. coliWID Waste Incineration DirectiveWRAP Waste and Resources Action ProgrammeWVO Waste vegetable oil

1. Objectives of the project

The aim of this project was to produce a review of the current situation regarding disposal and recycling of food and catering waste and explore the feeding of food and catering waste to farmed animals as a future option. This could have the potential to enhance the sustainable use of food



waste, treating it as a resource; reduce waste, promote resilience to climate change, enhance the natural environment and improve land use.

The project comprised six main objectives:

1. To review current procedures for managing food waste taking into account best practice in the UK and internationally.

2. To assess the amount and nature of food waste available for re-use.

3. To review the processes currently used for collecting, moving and treating food waste both in the UK and internationally.

4. To review the sustainability of current processes for food waste disposal compared with its potential use in animal feed particularly in terms of environmental factors.

5. To assess the economics of using food waste in animal feed compared with existing information on current disposal methods.

6. To assess the potential risks to human and animal health that might arise from the use of food waste in animal feed. 2. Background to the study

In total, the annual quantity of food waste produced in the UK is estimated to be approximately 15 million tonnes (see Table 2). Although household food waste makes the largest single contribution (WRAP 2009a, 2009b, 2011b), about an equivalent amount is wasted in the supply chain (retailers, food manufacturers and food service and restaurants) (WRAP 2011c, WRAP 2011d, WRAP 2009a, DEFRA 2011a, Eunomia 2011).

Food waste can be recycled/recovered within the waste management sector, for example through anaerobic digestion (AD), composting and land spreading. Food waste is also a valuable source of energy, protein, minerals and vitamins for farmed livestock and it has traditionally been used (and it still is in many countries) to produce animal feed. A small but significant amount of food which would otherwise become waste is currently used as animal feed.

There is an increasing demand for livestock production as a result of the rapidly growing world population, income growth, increasing urbanization, changes in lifestyles and food preferences. Most of the protein required for livestock rearing in the European Union is imported from non-EU countries, much of it from non-sustainable and environmentally damaging sources, particularly South American soya1. The heavy demands that livestock production places on land and water use heavily impinges on the long term availability of food for human consumption at the global level. With limited potential for increasing the global cultivated land area, it is apparent that an immediate increase in the availability of food for direct human consumption could be achieved through replacing a proportion of the protein currently used to raise animals with sources that are not reliant upon cropping area. In this context, research such as the current EU FP7 project ProteInsect, coordinated by Fera, is investigating the use of protein derived from insects reared in food waste for animal feed to replace traditional plant sources and increase food security.

Current legislation prevents the recycling of certain categories of food waste (see Table 1) through feeding to livestock to protect public and animal health. Following the outbreak of Foot and Mouth Disease(FMD) in 2001, the UK Government prohibited the feeding to animals of all catering waste

1 http://www.euractiv.com/cap/meps-want-protein-deficit-eu-livestock-news-502925Recycling Food Waste Project No FO0218


since it is assumed that all such waste will contain or be at risk of being in contact with animal by-products (ABPs). This restriction was subsequently reflected in the EU Animal By-Products Regulation (EC) 1774/2002 and its successor 1069/2009 and is mandatory in all Member States. The European Commission is currently discussing the possible re-authorisation of non-ruminant processed animal proteins (PAP) to be used for the feeding of non-ruminants e.g. pigs and poultry, while respecting the prohibition of cannibalism. In case the aforementioned Regulation and also the TSE Regulation 999/2001 are revised, feeding of PAP derived from insects to pigs and poultry may be authorised. According to provisions of Regulation (EC) No 1069/2009(2), insects intended for the production of PAP are considered as farmed animals and, as such, cannot be fed with catering waste in order to prevent the spread of diseases transmissible to humans or animals (http://www.europarl.europa.eu/).

The Spongiform and Encephalopathy Advisory Committee also recommended that all intra-species recycling should be avoided to prevent the risk of a Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathy (TSE) being spread through recycling in animal feed. ABPs cover a whole range of material of animal origin not intended for human consumption, which includes catering waste (Table 1). Catering waste is defined as 'all food waste including used cooking oil originating in restaurants, catering facilities and kitchens, including central kitchens and household kitchens'. It is worth noting here, that there is no worldwide agreement over the banning of catering waste or “swill” feeding, which is currently permitted for instance in Japan, USA, South Korea and New Zealand.

The recovery and disposal of food waste is also subject to the EU Waste Framework Directive (2008/98/EC) the principal aim of which is to protect human health and the environment. The Directive requires that any establishment or undertaking carrying out waste recovery or disposal obtains a permit. The permitting requirements are implemented in England and Wales by the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales Regulations) 2010. The Directive also provides for exemptions from the need for a permit providing (a) general rules are laid down for each type of exempt activity covering the types and quantities of waste, (b) that the operation meets the objectives or protecting human health and the environment and (c) the establishment or undertaking carrying out the exempt activity registers with the competent authority. The competent authority for environmental permitting and the registration of exemptions in England is the Environment Agency. In Wales, the function is carried out by the Natural Resources Body for Wales, in Scotland by the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) and in Northern Ireland by the Northern Ireland Environment Agency (NIEA). Under current restrictions, there are a number of options for the recycling, recovery and disposal of food waste complying with Animal By-products Regulations (ABPR) such as rendering, anaerobic digestion, composting, land spreading and incineration with/without energy recovery. The comparative benefits of some of these methods have been assessed through lifecycle analysis (Eunomia, 2007b). However, the impacts and benefits of recycling food waste through feeding to the livestock sector (after assessing the risks to public and animal health), particularly the potential cost savings and environmental benefits, have not been assessed.

Table 1. Categories of animal by-products defined under EC regulations(Defra: http://animalhealth.defra.gov.uk/managing-disease/animalbyproducts/Categorisation.htm).

Under Regulation (EC) 1069/2009 animal by-products can fall into one of three categories that reflect the level of risk to public and animal health.

Category 1 MaterialCategory 1 material is defined in Article 8 of Regulation (EC) 1069/2009. It is the highest risk, and consists principally of material that is considered a TSE risk, such as Specified Risk Material (SRM) - those parts of an animal considered most likely to harbour a disease such as Bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), e.g. bovine spinal cord. Recycling Food Waste Project No FO0218


Pet animals, zoo and circus animals and experimental animals are also classified as Category 1 material due to the level of veterinary drugs and residues they may contain. Wild animals may also be classified as Category 1 material when they are suspected of carrying a disease communicable to humans or animals. Catering waste from means of international transport (i.e. which has come from outside the EU) is also Category 1.

Category 2 MaterialCategory 2 material is defined in Article 9 of Regulation (EC) 1069/2009. Category 2 material is also high risk; it includes fallen stock, manure and digestive tract content. Category 2 is also the default status of any animal by-product not defined in Regulation (EC) 1069/2009 as either Category 1 or Category 3 material.

Category 3 MaterialCategory 3 material is defined in Article 10 of Regulation(EC) 1069/2009. Category 3 materials are considered low risk. Category 3 materials include parts of animals that have been passed fit for human consumption in a slaughterhouse but which are not intended for consumption. Category 3 also includes catering waste, and products of animal origin, or foodstuffs containing products of animal origin which are no longer intended for human consumption for commercial reasons or due to manufacturing or packaging defects or other defects that do not pose a risk to public or animal health.

EC Regulation 183/2005 lays down requirements for feed hygiene (the Feed Hygiene Regulation). It contains a number of provisions aimed at improving feed safety, including rules to improve the operational standards of feed businesses and traceability measures to ensure that in the case of a feed contamination incident feed products can be easily traced and recalled if necessary (FSA, 2005). The Regulation also requires the registration and/or approval of feed business establishments. The UK Food Standards Agency (FSA) is responsible for legislation ensuring the safety of feed and includes for example, the Feed Hygiene Regulation (183/2005) which requires food businesses putting material into the feed chain to be registered and the Undesirable Substances Directive (2002/32).

Defra needs to understand which are the most sustainable, economically and environmentally, and the most practicable management routes for food wastes from a number of sources. This project builds on previous analyses of management of food waste and compares them with a hypothetical situation where food waste would be recycled into the livestock sector. The study aims purely to draw together existing evidence to provide an initial comparative picture of management options for food waste.

It is necessary to establish not only the amounts of food waste collected but whether it is suitable for use as an animal feed. Annex 2 therefore reviews information on the volume and nature of the food waste and Annex 1 the current methods of managing food waste disposal, recycling and recovery. Annex 3 reviews the processes currently used in the UK and other countries for processing food waste. Annexes 4, 5 & 6 review the implications of utilising food waste in animal feed for the environment, economics and human and animal health respectively. In general, the analyses compared the utilisation of food waste as animal feed to its use in AD and to disposal to landfill. These comparators were chosen on the basis that landfill is currently the most commonly used method for waste disposal and that AD was identified as a key future initiative in the Defra Anaerobic Digestion Strategy and Action Plan2 published in 2011.

3. Completion of the project objectives:

A summary of the outcomes from the review is given in the report below.

2 http://www.defra.gov.uk/publications/files/anaerobic-digestion-strat-action-plan.pdfRecycling Food Waste Project No FO0218


More detailed reports for the individual sections are presented as annexes:

Annex 1: Objective 1: To review current procedures for managing food waste taking into account best practice in the UK and internationallyAnnex 2: Objective 2: To assess the amount and nature of food waste available for re-use.

Annex 3: Objective 3: To review the processes currently used for collecting, moving and treating food waste both in the UK and internationally.

Annex 4: Objective 4: To review the sustainability of current processes for food waste disposal compared with its potential use in animal feed particularly in terms of social and environmental factors.

Annex 5: Objective 5: To assess the economics of using food waste in animal feed compared with existing information on current disposal methods.

Annex 6: Objective 6: To assess the potential risks to human and animal health that might arise from the use of food waste in animal feed.

Objective 1. To review current procedures for managing food waste taking into account best practice in the UK and internationally.

A range of management options for food waste is available. The waste hierarchy, as set out in the Waste Framework Directive, ranks waste management options according to what is best for the environment. It gives priority to preventing waste. When waste is created, the hierarchy gives priority to preparing it for re-use, then recycling, then recovery, and last of all disposal (e.g. landfill)3. In the case of food waste, however, anaerobic digestion (mainly a recycling method due to the generation of biogas) is environmentally better than composting4 and other energy recovery options, and therefore it takes priority in the waste hierarchy over composting and other recovery, but not prevention (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Food waste hierarchy

3 http://www.defra.gov.uk/publications/files/pb13530-waste-hierarchy-guidance.pdf4 composting is now considered to be equal to PAS 100/EoW standard can be considered as recycling.



The environmental and economic benefits of different treatment methods depend significantly on local conditions such as population density, infrastructure and climate as well as on markets for associated products (energy and composts). In order to assess the sustainability of the different methods a life cycle analysis is required to provide a comprehensive picture of management options for food waste. Life cycle analyses have been carried out for some of these processes. Takata et al (2012) reported that in Japan composting facilities showed a relatively low environmental impact and a high economic efficiency, whereas animal feed facilities had a wide distribution of the total GHG emissions, depending on both the energy usage during the drying process due to the water content of the food waste and the number of recycled products. In comparison with incineration, the majority of the food recycling facilities in Japan showed low GHG emissions and acceptable economic effectiveness. Kim & Kim (2010) compared feed manufacturing and composting in Korea, where they reported that 200 kg of CO2-eq could be produced from dry feeding process, 61 kg of CO2-eq from wet feeding process, 123 kg of CO2-eq from composting process, and 1010 kg of CO2-eq from landfilling, making the wet feeding process the best in terms of environmental impact.

When considering waste management options it is important to consider the waste collection system jointly with the processing technology, since the collection regime will affect the food waste capture levels and the choice of processing method will be influenced by the composition of the input waste. The Waste and Resources Action Programme (WRAP) published two reports in 2007 (plus an update in 2008) prepared by Eunomia Research and Consulting whereby the economic and environmental costs of different biowaste and food waste disposal/recycling methods are modelled in detail following a life cycle approach and taking into account different collection scenarios (Eunomia 2007a, Eunomia 2007b, Eunomia 2008). According to these reports only around 2% of available food waste were collected separately for composting or anaerobic digestion. The UK landfills a higher proportion of biodegradable waste than most other European countries. It was estimated that at least 40% of the 15 million tonnes of annual food waste arising in Britain is disposed of to landfill (http://www.defra.gov.uk/publications/files/pb13540-waste-policy-review110614.pdf).



Includes composting, landspreading, incineration with energy recovery and rendering/biodiesel

Includes incineration without energy recovery and landfill

Annex 1 presents a brief overview of the main methods currently used in the UK to manage food waste, their costs and their impact on the environment and public and animal health. These include landfilling, incineration, rendering and biodiesel production, biological treatments (anaerobic digestion, composting, mechanical biological treatment (MBT) and land spreading and animal feed production, although use for the latter is currently very limited due to the restrictions in the EU Animal By-Products Regulations (ABPR).

The different food waste sources and current management options are summarised in Figure 2. Most methods for treating food waste, with the exception of incineration without energy recovery, have a useful output, generating either energy or products that can be used for different purposes. In some cases, products or co-products of a particular treatment option can be used as feedstock for another method (e.g. rendered products can be used for energy recovery by incineration). The balance between the value of the output and the economic, health and environmental cost of each option will determine the sustainability of each method. Currently, AD and biofuels are subject to incentives from the government for example the Anaerobic Digestion Loan Fund, the Feed in Tariffs and the recently introduced Renewable Heat Incentive whereas the use of landfill is being discouraged by the landfill tax – with increases maintained towards a floor of £80 per tonne in 2014/15. The value of products such as biogas also offset the costs. The complexity of the current situation in the UK suggests that a specific study of options for the UK is required. This project has concentrated on providing a comparison between landfill, AD and animal feed.

Following the BSE and FMD outbreaks in the UK there is great sensitivity about the safety of animal feed. Methods that include incineration or a rendering process provide a high degree of security, in that they will eliminate most pathogens likely to be found in the food waste (incineration is required to fully eliminate the risk of BSE prion). Although there have been some reports of incineration facilities affecting human health in the nearby area none of these have been statistically proven so they are considered safe.

Figure 2. Sources of food waste and current management options.



Landfill is currently accepted to be a safe method for disposal of food waste, provided it is managed effectively. Biological methods for the disposal of waste containing ABPs, e.g. composting and AD are controlled under ABP regulations and quality standards such as the BSI PAS100 for composting and the BSI PAS110 for AD. The processes are known to substantially reduce non-sporulating pathogens (E.coli and Salmonella). Compost and digestate are applied to agricultural fields but subject to grazing bans to protect animal health (see PAS 100 and PAS 110). Direct spreading of food waste to land is only allowed for certain low risk food wastes such as waste milk and are subject to the grazing ban.

The use of food waste as an animal feed requires that processes used are effective in eliminating any pathogens present as it is consumed directly by the animal and will therefore enter the human food chain.

The outputs from the different food waste management options and their inter-relationships are summarised in Figure 3. This figure illustrates the complexity of the interactions involved between processes, where some of the current processes exchange streams, for example, some waste from the AD process will be ultimately sent to landfill and waste from rendering may go to AD, landfill or incineration.

Data concerning costs, environmental and health impact of the different options for animal feed and pet food production are not currently available. This work aims to assess the economic and environmental sustainability of the potential use of food waste in animal feed as well as the human and animal health risks that might arise from such practice.

Figure 3. Food waste management options: relationships and outputs.Recycling Food Waste Project No FO0218


Objective 2. To assess the amount and nature of food waste available for re-use.

In order to evaluate the practicalities of using food waste in the production of animal feed it is important to understand the amounts of food wastefood waste available and what type and quality is available. There are a number of reports on waste volume and type already available and these were used to calculate the overall amount of food wastefood waste. Data was not always available for all the sources, in particular for volumes of former foodstuffs from the retail sector and this made the analyses for this section difficult to achieve.

The Commercial and Industrial Waste Survey 2009 (Defra 2011a) categorised animal and vegetable wastes generated by the commercial and industrial business sectors into potentially reusable (used again as non waste, e.g. co-products of vegetable processing used for animal feed), potentially recyclable (converted into another useful product, e.g. compost) and potentially recoverable (treated in another form but not recycled or reused). Estimates from survey data indicated that ~ 0.1 mt of this waste was reusable, ~ 3.5 mt recyclable and ~ 3.7 mt recoverable, giving a total potential recovery of 7.3 mt of animal and vegetable waste. This figure is higher than the total estimated animal and vegetable waste arisings for the commercial and industrial sectors



(~ 5.4 mt) and implies that the same waste streams may have been allocated to more than one of the above categories.

Estimates from the same report of animal and vegetable waste currently landfilled that could be reused (17,522 tonnes), recycled (185,000 tonnes) or recovered (252,642 tonnes) gives a total of commercial and industrial animal and vegetable waste arising that could be used productively of ~ 0.455 mt.

A study (Eunomia 2011) to provide estimates of food waste available from household, commercial and industrial sources based on the assumption that appropriate collection systems were in place gives different estimates of food waste arisings than estimates of waste arisings produced by other studies. Eunomia estimates that 0.3 mt/annum of source separated food waste are currently being collected by Local Authorities with a potential for a further 1.9 mt (total 2.2 mt) which could be collected for treatment by AD. In addition, a further 5.2 mt of food waste is available from commercial sources and around 0.56 mt from industrial sources. Figures from WRAP (2011b) estimate 7.2 mt of household food waste for 2010 and Defra’s Waste Review (Defra 2011b) gives an estimate of 3.76 mt of food waste arising in England from the manufacture, distribution and retail sectors.Eunomia (2011) provides a breakdown of the estimated food waste in England, Scotland and Wales by business sector giving a total of estimated amount of food waste across GB households and business sectors of around 7.9 mt.

Table 2 summarises the current figures for waste management routes. The data was found to be incomplete and not very detailed.

Modern farming methods require carefully balanced feeds to ensure efficient growth and acceptable health at all stages of the life of the animal. The animal feed industry utilises a range of by-products and by careful analysis and combining ingredients produces balanced diets for the major farm animals in the UK. A typical diet is made up of carbohydrate (energy source), a protein source, minerals and vitamins. The increasing cost of feed is a significant financial burden and producers are likely to welcome lower cost feeds even at the expense of some yield/quality losses.In this report we have considered mainly poultry and pigs, which are monogastrics (having a single stomach). Current feeds are blended from various raw materials and additives and are often supplied as compound feeds in a meal or pelleted format. The basic ingredients of mixed food wastes are comparable to animal feeds but the food waste is likely to require modification to meet the nutritional requirements of a modern farm production system.



Table 2. Amounts of waste processed by currently available management routes.

Food waste manage-ment

Landfill Land spreading

Incinera-tion with energy

Incinera-tion without energy

Recycling Rendering/processing for animal feed’

In VesselComposting

Anaerobic Digestion (sewage plants)

Anaerobic Digestion (dedicated food waste facilities)

Mechanical Biological Treatment

Home compostingand fedto household pets

TOTAL

Current situation

mt/annum

7.001 0.932 0.203 0.25 3 2.073,4 0.735 0.383 (0.68)6 1.907 0.796,8 0.257 0.708 15.19

% 46.1 6.1 1.3 1.6 13.6 4.8 2.5 (4.5) 12.5 5.2 1.6 4.6 100.0

Final Target

Dis-posal

Organic fertilizer/soil nutrients

Energy produc-tion

Disposal Conversion to new products eg Fuel

Recycling into various products

Organic fertilizer/soil improvers

Organic fertilisers/soil improvers

Organic fertilizer/soil improvers

Land recovery/energy

Organic fertilizer/soil improvers/pet food

1Defra 2011b; 2WRAP 2010; 3Defra 2011a; 4Unclear whether this includes 0.1mt waste vegetable oil (WRAP 2007); 5WRAP 2011d ( this figure may include some by products of meat processing); 6Eunomia 2011: This figure represents existing capacity for AD and IVC which may be partly utilised by green waste; 7WRAP 2011a: comprises ~ 36,000t separately collected household food waste, 38,000t estimated household food waste mixed with garden waste and ~ 175,000t food waste from commercial and industrial sources; 8WRAP 2011b. This figure is the estimated quantity of food disposed of down the sewers and assumed to be treated by AD by the water companies. 8But see Defra 2011: Anaerobic Digestion Strategy and Action Plan: a commitment to increasing energy from waste through anaerobic digestion. This report states that there are 54 existing AD plants (excluding sewage treatment plants) with capacity for 534,200t commercial waste, 382,000t waste from food and drinks manufacture and 136,156t in farm-based plants.

Recycling Food Waste Project No FO0218 Page 18 of 30Report to Defra

Further notes to above matrix

1. The 7mt waste to landfill figure comes from page 66 (Defra 2011b). The report also gives a figure of 5mt that could potentially be diverted to AD or other management routes, possibly including animal feed with appropriate pretreatment. This report does not give separate figures for household and C&I waste although WRAP gives a figure of 5.1mt for household waste sent to landfill based on the old figure of 8.3mt household waste. Using the new figure of 7.2mt household waste and assuming the same proportion goes to landfill, the new landfill figure would be 4.6mt. Hence the range 4.6-5.0my in the scenarios table.2. WRAP 2010, table 13, page 31represents a figure from sample data extrapolated to give a UK figure for the food and drink manufacturing sector only (for 2006). This figure was obtained by extrapolation (to give figure for the UK) from a figure of 99,428 tonnes from a sample survey of 115 companies. Corresponding figures for 2008 and 2009 are 102,745 and 111,634 tonnes respectively.Therefore, if ~ 100,000tonnes is extrapolated to ~0.93 mt for UK

~103,000 tonnes is extrapolated to ~0.96 mt for UK~112,000 tonnes is extrapolated to ~1.04 mt for UK

Reference Defra 2010 Mapping Waste in the Food and Drink Industry Oakdene Hollins Research and ConsultingIt represents liquid wastes and sludges (e.g. from on-site effluent plants) that were spread or tinkered to a sewage treatment plant. It does not include trade effluent transferred by public sewer to a municipal water treatment plant.3. Defra 2011a page 53, table 30. Figure rounded to 250,000t.5. WRAP 2011e Table 16 page 52. Represents total of categories 1, 2 and 3 wastes for 2009.

Recycling Food Waste Project No FO0218 Page 19 of 30Report to Defra

Objective 3. To review the processes currently used for collecting, moving and treating food waste both in the UK and internationally.

The principal challenges associated with processing mixed food waste into feed ingredients are the high water content, the compositional variability and the potential presence of animal and human pathogens. The methods used for processing food waste must be designed to obtain a product that is stable and free from pathogens and contaminants. Moreover, from the feed industry perspective, comprehensive analysis of the nutritional profile and digestibility of the product will be required as well as consistency of quality and supply. Figure 4 summarises the general steps and issues involved in producing animal feed from food waste.

Figure 4. Principal issues to consider when converting food waste into animal feed ingredients.

Many different methods can be used for processing food waste. In many cases, the nature of the food and even the species for which the ingredient is intended will determine the method that can be used. Currently, the range of food waste materials that may be processed into animal feed is severely restricted in the UK. Former foodstuffs that can be recycled for use in farm animal feed (from premises such as bakers, supermarkets, retail stores, crisp manufacturers and confectioners, but not from kitchens and restaurants) include (Food and Drink Federation, Food to Feed Guidance, 2011): baked goods, milk and milk products, eggs and egg products. Procedures required by Defra include heat treatment of milk and ensuring milk comes from FMD free areas. Baked goods must be free of meat and not been in contact with meat; egg shells must be rendered and powdered before use. Other materials currently allowed in animal feed (with exceptions and conditions, see Annex 3) include used cooking oil (but not from catering sources and only of non-animal origin), fishmeal and fish oils. A wide range of safety requirements are in place to ensure that the waste does not contain restricted products and that food waste is treated to prevent pathogens growing or to reduce the pathogen load to acceptable levels, e.g. by heating the product.

Processes for treating food waste for the production of animal feed are in place in other countries, such as USA, Japan and others, and are routinely used. Processing systems usually involve size reduction or shredding followed by pasteurisation or sterilisation processes, which involve the application of heat or a combination of heat and pressure to remove pathogenic organisms. In the USA a range of processes are used including rendering, cooking at 100oC for 30min and/or extrusion at 140oC for 30 secs. This is followed by drying where required. Japan has a protocol for the production of Ecofeed (animal feed from food waste), which involves pre-heating at 70oC for 30 min or at 80oC for 3 minutes when waste may contain meat (and preferably also when it does not contain meat). This is followed by Recycling Food Waste Project No FO0218


a processing method that may be dehydration, lactic fermentation or ensiling. In some cases a final drying step is included. One common feature to different countries is that due to the risk of TSE diseases in ruminants, specific requirements and limitations regarding permitted animal materials and processing methods apply to animal feed production for these species.

The available processes are well known and could be implemented under modifications of the current regulations. Naturally, these processes require expensive and energy demanding methods such as heating (to eliminate pathogens) and drying (to reduce the high moisture content of food waste). The economic and environmental burden of recycling food waste into animal feed will depend on many different factors such as waste stream, nature of the waste, technology involved, final product to be achieved, etc. Annexes 4 and 5 of this report provide an assessment of the environmental and economic impact of animal feed production as a food waste management route in comparison with anaerobic digestion and landfill.

Objective 4. To review the sustainability of current processes for food waste disposal compared with its potential use in animal feed particularly in terms of environmental factors.

This review provides a high level comparison of the environmental sustainability of re-using selected food waste categories through the pig and poultry sectors with recycling through Anaerobic Digestion (AD). For the purpose of this assessment mixed catering waste could be considered within this last category as the higher level of treatment requirements these wastes attract could be considered similar. The sustainability indicators considered in the assessment include air and water quality, land-use, natural resource management, water consumption, environmental health and greenhouse gas emissions.

Two sources of feedstock are considered in this study, commercial food waste generated from the retail sector (e.g. supermarket, market, convenience store) and food waste generated by the food manufacturing industry (e.g. preparation of ready meals, pet food, apple pulp from cider production, and cheese production). In this report, the definition of waste follows the recommendation of the EC (COM(2007 59 Final)) which states that “In EU waste law, notions such as by-product or secondary raw material have no legal meaning – materials are simply waste or not”. The first category is referred subsequently to as “trade facilities” and the second “food processing facilities”.

Four categories of food waste (bakery items, fruits and vegetables, dairy items and waste containing animal by-products) have been selected for the comparison of end-use environmental sustainability. These have been selected to account for major differences in characteristic composition, sustainability of the feedstock, a requirement to meet ABPR requirements and most importantly the need for source segregation. Embodied energy and embodied water have not been considered in this study due to the large variation in the value depending on the source and transport type of the product. Embodied energy and water will be the same at the start of the analysis when food is “wasted”. Furthermore, the concepts of embodied energy and water do not necessarily relate to the energy or water that is available for the production of feedstuff or AD input feed.

It has been assumed that the segregation of each category of food waste is feasible at the point where the food waste is generated. Where the food waste may contain or has been in contact with meat and fish, the entire waste stream is handled as ‘containing animal by-products’. This would be valid for kitchen waste, mixed food waste or catering waste though only data for meat and fish has been researched and considered for this category.Data availability: The robustness of suitable data to evaluate the environmental sustainability of utilising food waste within AD or as a feedstuff for the pig and poultry livestock sector is poor. The literature is either very generic (food waste with no compositional data) or so specific that it does not allow for a consistent comparison in the sustainability analysis. A major constraint is the lack of data surrounding animal feed production from food waste other than that pertaining to rendering which is a highly specific process for processing animal waste and by-products. Acquiring good quality data for other methods of animal feed production (i.e. de-packaging and macerating) is critical to improving the quantitative nature of this environmental sustainability assessment.Recycling Food Waste Project No FO0218


Water and energy consumption: The sustainability indicators for water quality, and energy consumption show some marked differences for AD and animal feed production. Although rendering has a higher water and energy consumption in addition to producing more wastewater than AD, this process is only required for waste containing animal by-products. The processing of commercial and retail by-products and food waste not contaminated with animal items consumes higher amounts of energy and heat when compared to AD. However, it has negligible water consumption and their impact on the indicator “Water Quality” can be considered positive when compared to landfill. In terms of energy consumption, AD is favoured over animal feed production due to the offset of overall energy use by the production of electricity and heat with the addition of a CHP process. The direct re-use of non-animal product containing food waste to the animal sector with only depackaging and maceration would use the least water and energy.Land use: This indicator, on the basis of available data is a more favourable end route for animal feed production rather than AD as the recovery of this waste stream offsets the large amount of land required to grow feed in the first instance.Resource management: For treatment processes which are not required under ABPR, the quantity of chemicals used in animal feedstuffs are likely to be lower than for AD. The re-use of food waste in the production of animal feedstuff will lead to a reduction in the quantity of chemical fertiliser required to grow cereals and grains to directly feed pigs and poultry. Indirectly, the addition of meat and fish waste to animal feedstuff can also replace the quantity of cereals required. This generates a net benefit on the amount of resources (chemicals) required for the animal feed scenario for bakery, fruits and vegetables and dairy items. However, the feeding of processed food waste streams to the animal sector may require additional veterinary control measures (AFSSA, 2007).GHG emission: There is a net positive impact on GHG emissions in using food waste in AD rather than recycling processes for animal feed production based on CO2 equivalent emissions. The result of GHG emission from different studies is mixed. In Japan (Takata et al., 2012) observed a similar pattern but a study in Korea (Kim et al., 2011) place the production of dry feedstuff at the same level of emission to AD and a clear benefit for the production of liquid feed stuff. The latter study is hampered by the limited data availability on AD due to the low uptake of this technology in the country.Air quality: Odour is the main negative impact on air quality and is likely to be similar for both AD and animal feed production especially where rendering is required.

In conclusion specific categories of waste, which do not contain animal products or by-products can be directly used as a feed in the pig and poultry and this route provides a sustainable outlet for this type of food waste.

The production of formulated animal feed from segregated bakery produce, fruit and vegetables and dairy items is potentially more sustainable than anaerobic digestion for most of the assessed sustainability indicators.

For those waste streams that could have an animal content, the cost and energy associated with production of formulated animal feed, which must include an animal by-products regulations compliant step, this option is potentially less sustainable than anaerobic digestion. This is because the latter converts the waste to captured energy and produces an organic digestate that can be used for soil improvement. Anaerobic digestion can be used in parallel with a Combined Heat and Power (CHP) process and this means that the heat and electricity sustainability indicators favour the treatment of all food waste through this route.

Clearly segregated waste streams need to be established to ensure a sustainable option selection.

These conclusions are heavily reliant on the source data used in the comparison exercise. Data from a Category 3 rendering process has been used as the basis for animal feedstuff production which requires an ABPR compliant step and this is a particularly resource and energy intensive process. If further data is found for other ABPR suitable compliant processes the evaluation could be refined.

Objective 5. To assess the economics of using food waste in animal feed compared with existing information on current disposal methods. Recycling Food Waste Project No FO0218


Traditionally many pig and poultry producers have used food waste as animal feed, and it is likely that they may become increasingly attracted to seek to use food waste as feed as the price of conventional arable based animal feeds increase. An important factor is the feeding conversion rate (i.e., ratio between weight of food waste and weight gain) of the food waste. Producers will be willing to pay a significantly lower price for food waste that is of a low feeding value. Associated with this, the proportion of producers who will switch to food waste products is related to the relative price and feeding value. At very low feeding values, it is shown that very few producers will be better off using food waste, unless it is subsidised.

Therefore, the link between opportunity costs (which can be considered as the loss associated with not using conventional feed, e.g., if nutritional value is low longer feeding periods may be required) and the use of food waste is explored. The results indicate that the use of food waste as animal feed is only justified when the price of food waste products is relatively low. In fact, even if the food waste feed is fully subsidised (i.e., available to producers at zero cost) the use of these feed products is only profitable as long as the opportunity costs do not increase the total cost by more than around 10 percent. If feed derived from food waste costs the same as conventional feed, then the enterprise is shown to be less profitable, due to the opportunity costs.

An economic model was developed through a series of simulation runs (based on a Monte Carlo method which relied on repeated random sampling to compute the results). From these runs the costs and benefits of using food waste for animal feed and landfill are compared. The economic model establishes the costs and benefits to producers/farmers per tonne of food waste and, subsequently, assesses the cost-benefit ratio of landfill versus using food waste for animal feed. The cost-benefit ratio associated with landfill was predicted as having a relatively large inter-quartile range and, importantly, with a ratio greater than 1 (i.e., the costs outweigh the benefits). In complete contrast, it is evident that significant efficiencies are to be gained when food waste is used for animal feed, as benefits are predicted to be substantially larger than the estimates of cost. It is estimated that the most likely benefits of food waste being utilised as animal feed compared to land fill are in the region of £19-£29 per tonne of food waste.

One of the principal drivers or advantages of anaerobic digestion (AD) is its ability to turn food waste into a usable energy form. With energy supply becoming a higher priority this makes AD an important process for managing food waste. The principal economic driver for AD is the production of this energy. A further by-product of AD is the production of digestate. Compared to slurry, digestate offers a number of benefits. A further economic model is developed through a series of simulation runs (again based on a Monte Carlo method). From this procedure it was shown that, for the most part, the benefits associated with AD outweigh the costs involved with landfill.

When comparing processed food waste for animal feed (PFW) and AD the societal savings attainable are around £24 per tonne diverted from landfill to animal feed and up to £16 for every tonne diverted from landfill to AD. However, when comparing the benefits, there is an apparent difference in the range of potential savings. The implications of this are that there is more uncertainty with the benefits stemming from AD compared to PFW. Both are likely to provide positive societal benefits, but the benefits with AD may be substantially higher compared to PFW. Equally though, compared to PFW the same magnitude of benefits may not be realised under AD, and it may also even be suboptimal to landfill. So, careful judgement is required. Nevertheless, if we use the averages as yardsticks, we can clearly see that societal benefits can be achieved with both PFW and AD.

Objective 6. To assess the potential risks to human and animal health that might arise from the use of food waste in animal feed.

Food waste containing meat or meat products can be a potential source of infection from a range of bacteria (including antimicrobial-resistant strains) viruses, parasites and various toxins. Transmissible spongiform encephalopathy agents (Scrapie, BSE, CJD, v-CJD, CWD) are highly resistant to heat and chemical inactivation but as specified risk materials (SRM) from cattle and sheep do not enter the food Recycling Food Waste Project No FO0218


or animal feed chain and are currently disposed of by incineration, it is assumed that this situation will continue and therefore TSEs can be considered to present a negligible risk.

Food waste has been fed to domestic animals particularly pigs and poultry, whilst historically, ruminants have been fed meat and bone meal produced from rendered carcasses. The feeding of food waste to pigs is a traditional practice that is still carried out in a number of countries. For example, in New Zealand, legislation requires that any waste containing meat is cooked (100 °C for 1 hour). This was the situation in Britain, where swill feeding to pigs was controlled under the Food waste Order 1973, and the subsequent Animal By-Products Order 1999 and its amendments. However, following the outbreak of Foot and Mouth Disease in 2001, the Government prohibited the feeding of catering waste to animals that contained, or had been in contact with animal by-products. This restriction was subsequently reflected by the EU Animal By-Products Regulation and became mandatory in all Member States. Feeding catering waste to farmed livestock is currently not permitted. The Spongiform and Encephalopathy Advisory Committee (SEAC) also recommended that all intra-species recycling should be avoided to prevent the risk of a TSE being spread through recycling in animal feed. These restrictions, amongst others, were implemented under previous (EC No 1774/2002), and the newly revised (EC No 1069/2009), Animal By-Products Regulations as well as the TSE regulations (EC No 999/2001) Prior to the prohibition, legislation required that any waste containing meat or meat-products was cooked (100 °C for 1 hour). Other conditions and temperatures are used in for example rendering, but for the purposes of this review this temperature and treatment time were considered as the international standard. Further research into cooking or processing in higher temperature, pressure cooking systems that require shorter cooking times is required. A requirement may also be needed to specify a maximum feedstock particle size similar to that set in the EU standard treatment for AD, for example 12 mm.

If done correctly, cooking at 100oC for 1 hour is adequate to destroy pathogens identified in this report as being of low risk. These organisms have been considered in this category either because they do not occur in the UK, their risk of introduction is low, and thermal-inactivation data indicates sensitivity to heat treatment. They include a number of non-spore-forming bacteria such as Brucella, Campylobacter, Salmonella, Escherichia coli, and Listeria; viruses such as Classical Swine Fever virus, avian influenza virus, norovirus, and SARS coronavirus, and parasites such as Cryptosporidium and Trichinella. Heat treatment is generally lethal to microorganisms, but each species has its own particular heat tolerance. Some microorganisms are more heat-resistant than others, so as a consequence more stringent time and temperature combinations are required. Gram-positive bacteria tend to be more heat resistant than Gram-negative bacteria; yeasts and moulds tend to be fairly heat sensitive as are parasites.

Cooking is the usual way of destroying microbes in food, although the process is neither uniform nor instantaneous. There is a range of data on the thermal death characteristics of microorganisms, derived from many studies were conducted over a period of several decades, and there is little or no harmonisation between them; consequently the information derived from them is not homogeneous, e.g. different time-temperature combinations were tested for different species, and different food types were tested. To acquire a more precise overview of the thermal death characteristics of the variety of bacterial agents that have been studied a thorough systematic review of published studies and other available information and meta-analysis of the extracted data would need to be undertaken. This should focus on attempting to distil consensus D-values (the time in minutes at a given temperature required to destroy 90 % of the target microorganism) and Z-values (the number of degrees (oC or oF) required to change the D value by a factor of ten) for each bacterium / food substrate combination. There are several spore or toxin-forming bacteria (e.g. B. anthracis, B. cerus), for which available information indicates that heating to 100 oC for 1 hour would be sufficient to reduce spore numbers by at least 6 log10. However, because of their ability to form spores it was considered prudent to give them a higher risk categorisation than non-spore formers. Also considered as low to medium risk are viral agents such as foot and mouth disease virus or swine vesicular disease virus, which might become located in bone tissue which may have a protective effect against heating.



Disease agents in the medium to high risk category comprise spore or toxin-forming bacteria (e.g. C. sordelli) and some fungal mycotoxins. For these disease agents and the toxins, insufficient information may be available to determine if heat-treatment at 100 oC for 1 hour is sufficient to reduce the risks from re-feeding of waste to negligible levels. Further research is recommended to define the thermal death characteristics of these agents in the food types in which they may be found, and in food wastes. These practical studies should be harmonised, e.g. by examining the effect of identical temperatures, times, and contamination levels, and model food wastes should be used so that the accruing data is comparable between studies.

Viral agents of exotic, notifiable, and high economic impact diseases (Foot and Mouth Disease virus, Swine Vesicular Disease virus) can show varying degrees of thermal resistance. However, again there is no harmonised information, and the recommendation of a systematic review and meta-analysis equally applies.

For a number of organisms such as Brucella ovis, Clostridium chauvoei, PRRS virus, and Streptococcus pneumoniae, specific heat inactivation data are not available, but meanwhile they have been placed in the same categories as related agents. It is recommended that harmonised experimental studies, as described above, are performed to fill in the gaps in knowledge, so that a definitive assessment may be given of the risk of their transmission through consumption of food waste.

Summary of the options for sustainable and safe use of food and catering waste.

When considering the potential for additional food waste materials to be recycled into animal feed many different factors come into play, including nutritional value, environmental impact, economic cost, animal and human health, practicality, social impact and legislation. Undoubtedly, a large proportion of food and catering waste has a high nutritional value and the UK feed industry has the technological capability to handle and process these materials.

Perhaps the most important aspect to consider about recycling food waste into animal feed is the risk to animal and human health. The outbreak of FMD in 2001, and concerns over the risks of spread of prion-induced diseases such as BSE, have led to the banning of feeding most food waste materials to animals in the EU. Currently only food waste that does not contain and has not been in contact with meat or fish is permitted as animal feed. If animal by-products were to be re-introduced as animal feed, it is envisaged that prohibitions on intra-specific recycling would remain in place. In 2010, Defra launched a joint consultation with the Food Standards Agency (FSA) and the Welsh Assembly Government (WAG) to seek views on the European Commission’s TSE Roadmap 2, which envisages a relaxation of the ban on protein derived from non-ruminant animals, to allow this material to be used in feed for non-ruminants while maintaining the ban on intra-species recycling. The Commission notes that any amendments to current rules will be taken following a stepwise approach supported by scientific advice from the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). The consultation collected responses from twenty different organisations about their position on a possible revision of the feed ban5. The feed ban prohibits (with certain exceptions) the feeding of PAP, from both ruminants and non-ruminants, to all farmed animals. This was intended to minimise any risk of ruminants eating ruminant protein via cross-contaminated feed.

The responses to the consultation expressed concerns about agreed tolerance levels for processed animal protein (PAP) (except fishmeal) in ruminant animal feed, as this could risk intra-specific recycling of ruminant protein. They state that preventing intra-species recycling of ruminant protein is the key animal health control for BSE, as indicated by the dramatic fall in BSE cases since enforcement of the ban. Since pigs and poultry are considered TSE-resistant and pig meal and poultry meal are valuable sources of protein and minerals, the UK’s response to this consultation explained that the use of proteins from poultry to feed pigs and vice versa would be supported provided there is sound scientific evidence that this would not compromise the eradication of BSE in cattle. The UK's response

5 TSE-response-summary-1.pdfRecycling Food Waste Project No FO0218


recognised however, that such a significant relaxation of the feed ban would be controversial e.g. some religious groups have concerns about feeding pig meal. Such concerns could be mitigated by a stepwise approach, lifting the ban on feeding poultry meal first. A more cautious approach with robust supporting scientific evidence is required in relation to allowing the reintroduction of pig meal into feed.

A relaxation of the feed ban maintaining the prohibition of intra-species recycling would imply that food waste derived from different species would have to be segregated and the control mechanisms be in place to avoid cross-contamination. This would carry significant compliance costs, which might inhibit uptake. On the other hand, these measures would only seem possible in the manufacturing and retail sectors, where large amounts of single ingredients are handled in a structured fashion and controls can be implemented and monitored. In the hospitality sector there are still many companies that do not separate food waste from general waste, therefore meat/fish segregation by species, or indeed from fruit and vegetables, would appear too ambitious and difficult to implement in the near future.

Public acceptance of products of animal origin being re-introduced into the food chain is another factor that may influence the likelihood of part of the feed ban being lifted in the future. In 2011, the FSA commissioned research to gauge public’s attitude towards a change in the current ban on using processed animal protein (PAP) in feed, and reported that the majority of people taking part were against a relaxation of the ban6. Likewise, the retail sector will not accept any products that might be perceived as a risk to human health. The BSE and the foot and mouth crises had a big impact on public opinion about food safety and any changes to the feeding prohibitions will need to be backed up by strong evidence of food safety in order to be accepted by consumers.

In order to allow the use of food waste of animal origin for feed, important legislation changes would be required at both national and European level. These legislative changes can be difficult to bring about, as reflected by the issue of ruminant gelatine. The use of ruminant gelatine in animal feed is currently forbidden and despite scientific evidence that ruminant gelatine does not pose a significant TSE risk7

and support from the food and drink industries, the feed sector and Defra, no progress has been made by the European Commission towards regulatory amendments relating to ruminant gelatine use. All ruminant gelatine that is used in biscuit and confectionery products in the UK is derived from animals in countries with a negligible BSE risk and imported in line with OIE (World Organisation for Animal Health) recommendations. The FDF estimated that the tonnage of surplus biscuits, cakes and confectionery products containing ruminant gelatine in the UK is about 12,000 tonnes per annum. As it cannot be used as a feed ingredient, it has to be managed through alternative less sustainable methods of disposal including landfill, composting, anaerobic digestion and waste to energy, with an estimated cost of £1.28 million per year (Food and Drink Federation, FDF, personal communication).

The environmental and economic impact of converting food waste into animal feed is remarkably variable, depending on the specific processes and methods involved (Takata et al. 2012). One aspect influencing the overall benefit impact is the level of uptake of the final product. Kim & Kim (2010) analysed the risks of not being able to use the products of wet feed production, dry feed production and composting in Korea and having to dispose of them via incineration or landfilling. This study showed that wet feeding production was the best method in terms of environmental impact if the feed produced was consumed, however, if surplus had to be incinerated, this resulted in the worst option, with a global warming power even higher than direct landfilling of the initial food waste. In order to minimise these risks and to further promote food waste recycling, the Japanese system has introduced the concept of the “recycling loop” whereby industrial and commercial food waste emitters are required to buy products from farms that use animal feed from recycled food waste. This measures guarantees a destination for the feed product, and this, together with food recycling subsidies, has led to a marked increase in the number of food recycling facilities in Japan since 2007 (Takata et al., 2012).

In conclusion, the fact that recycling practices can be carried out in other countries without incurring problems with animal and human health illustrates that there are opportunities to recycle food waste

6 www.food.gov.uk/multimedia/pdfs/publication/bitewinter11.pdf7 www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/03/briefing/3969B1_1d.pdfRecycling Food Waste Project No FO0218


into animal feed in the UK safely. However, it is accepted that these processes must be controlled in order to assure the production of a safe product. In the UK, there are in place a range of complex regulations and quality schemes for the production of animal feed and control of ABP. These could be relatively easily adapted to allow the recycling of more categories of food waste into animal feed, particularly those categories that were temporarily banned under the current regulations, for example, bovine gelatine and poultry meat for feeding pigs. Processes do already exist for the treatment of catering waste, e.g. rendering, for integration into the animal feed streams, but these may prove expensive and environmentally less sustainable than its use in AD plants (see annexes 4 & 5) and may not be justified when the feed product produced is likely to be of low quality. Segregated waste streams are likely to yield higher value feed ingredients compared to catering waste containing animal material from mixed sources. There is a need for further research in the UK into processes that could be used to recycle food waste into animal feed, to determine their safety, environmental implications and economic value.

Conclusions

With appropriate co-operation between animal feedstuff producers and the AD industry it should be possible to identify a combined approach that utilises the food waste stream sustainably. The feasibility of this approach would need to be linked to a clear food waste segregation to avoid potential contamination of food waste that does not contain animal material and in this instance animal feed production provides a sustainable option as does AD. Where a high energy-demanding process like rendering is required for the production of safe animal feed, AD would be a more sustainable means of treatment. The re-use of waste vegetable, fruit, dairy and bakery items as a macerated or pulped feedstock for the pig and poultry sector has high environmental sustainability where there is a local requirement for the material.

From an economic perspective, managing food waste through both AD and animal feed production appear to be able to attain relatively equivalent societal savings, both around £24 per tonne diverted from landfill. Both are likely to provide positive societal benefits, but the benefits with AD may be substantially higher compared to PFW.

The review of human and animal health risks conducted here has concluded that a treatment at 100oC for 1 hour would be suitable to reduce the risks from low-medium risk pathogens. However, before this can be introduced as a requirement in legislation it would be prudent to carry out a full systematic review, particularly covering the higher risk organisms such as the spore-forming pathogens. If the information is not available experimental studies may be required. There is also a need to survey the food waste streams to establish the most common human and animal pathogens present.

The reintroduction of feeding food waste, for any kind of former foodstuffs which have been in contact with animal materials or catering waste, to animals will require some modification of the legislation at EU level as well as at UK level, especially to the EU Animal By-Products Regulation (EC) 1069/2009 and TSE Regulation 999/2001. The most likely modification would be to permit the recycling of such waste to pigs and poultry but not to ruminants because of concerns about TSE. The industry and the public are likely to be cautious about this, considering the recent history of the practice in the UK. Therefore, before taking these steps it would be informative to carry out social studies to determine the level of and reasons for resistance to changes. It is also very important to collect all the scientific evidence required to demonstrate that the procedures introduced would be safe.

If changes do take place it is important to handle the reintroduction of the utilisation of food waste and former foodstuffs in a proactive manner. For example, positive targeted promotion of food recycling with incentives similar to those introduced to promote AD would be necessary to ensure its success, e.g. demonstration events and sites and subsidies/incentives for production and use of recycled feed.

Recommendations for future research



Further research is required to generate quantitative data specific to the UK to enable a robust comparison of different food waste recovery routes and improve the subjective ‘qualitative’ nature of the current assessment. There is a particular need for more accurate data on volumes and types of former foodstuffs and food waste available from manufacturing and retail premises. There is also a need for more data on processes for animal feed production from food waste to allow the assessment of environmental impacts.

It is recommended that a formal systematic literature review and meta-analysis is carried out to fully define the effectiveness of heating to 100 oC for 1 h, particularly against spore-producing pathogens, and viral agents of exotic, notifiable, and high economic impact diseases. Further research is recommended to define the thermal death characteristics of agents classed as low to medium risk, and as medium to high risk, in the food types in which they may be found, and in food wastes. These practical studies should be harmonised, e.g. by examining the effect of identical temperatures, times, and contamination levels, and model food wastes should be used so that the accruing data is comparable between studies. These studies should also be performed for agents for which specific heat inactivation data are not available. A survey of food waste streams to establish the most common human and animal pathogens present is recommended if the systematic review does not identify sufficient information.

If it is considered that food waste should be re-introduced into the animal feed industry, particularly if mixed waste is used, it is likely that further work will be required including pilot studies and demonstrations to demonstrate suitable production processes and the level of benefits achievable by utilising this resource. This could be combined with a study on the social issues involved in its reintroduction.

References to published material9. This section should be used to record links (hypertext links where possible) or references to other

published material generated by, or relating to this project.



References.

Agence Française de Sécurite Sanitaire des Aliments (AFSSA). 2007. Rapport du groupe de travail «alimentation animale et sécurité sanitaire des aliments». 181p. [http://www.anses.fr/Documents/ALAN-Ra-AlimentationAnimale.pdf]

BSI PAS 100 - Compost specification.BSI PAS 110 - Specification for Digestate.Defra (2011a). Commercial and Industrial Waste Survey 2009 Final Report. May 2011 Jacobs Engineering UK Ltd.Defra (2011b). Government Review of Waste Policy in England 2011.Eunomia (2007a) Dealing with Food Waste in the UK.Eunomia (2007b). Managing Biowastes from Households in the UK: Applying Life-cycle Thinking

in the Framework of Cost-benefit Analysis.Eunomia (2008). Greenhouse gas balances of waste management scenarios - report for the

Greater London Authority.Eunomia (2011). Anaerobic digestion market outlook. Eunomia Research and Consulting Bristol.FDF Food to Feed Guidance (2011). Food and Drink Federation.FSA (2012). European Parliament and Council Regulation 183/2005 of 12 January 2005 laying

down requirements for feed hygiene.Kim, M.-H. & Kim, J.-W. (2010). Comparison through a LCA evaluation analysis of food waste

disposal options from the perspective of global warming and resource recovery. Science of the total environment 408, p. 3998–4006.

Kim, M-H., Song, Y-E, Song, H-B. , Kim, J-W., Hwang, S.J. (2011). Evaluation of food waste disposal options by LCC analysis from the perspective of global warming: Jungnang case, South Korea. Waste Management 31, p.2112–2120.

Naro (2001). National Agricultural Research Organisation -2001. Standard Tables of feed composition in Japan.

Takata M, Fukushima K, Kino-Kimata N, Nagao N, Niwa C and Toda T (2012). The effects of recycling loops in food waste management in Japan: Based on environmental and economic evaluation of food recycling. Science of the total environment, 432: 309-317.

Westendorf, M.L., Dong, Z.C. & Schoknecht, P.A. (1998). Recycled cafeteria food waste as a feed for swine: nutrient content digestibility, growth and meat quality. Journal of Animal Science 76, 2976-2983.

WRAP (2009a). Household food and drink waste in the UK. Banbury, UK. ISBN: 1-84405-430-6.WRAP (2009b). Down the drain: quantification and exploration of food and drink waste disposed

of to the sewer by households in the UK. Banbury, UK. ISBN: 1-84405-431-4.WRAP (2011b). New estimates for Household Food and Drink Waste in the UK. Banbury, UK.WRAP (2011c). Food waste in schools. Banbury, UK.WRAP (2011d). The composition of waste disposed of by the UK hospitality industry Banbury,

UK.WRAP (2012). http://www.lovefoodhatewaste.com/ (accessed 2012).

Acknowledgements.

We are grateful for the help of the people listed below who gave freely of their time to discuss the subject with us and provided valuable information.AIC- Judith Nelson, Simon Williams.Edwin Snow Quality Solutions Ltd.David Mackley AC Shropshire LtdJohn Knight AB NutritionRichard Poskitt PDM Group.Derek Armstrong BPEXMary Vickers EBLEXKeith James WRAPStephen Woodgate, FABRARobert Brocklesby, Brocklesby Ltd.



Lynn Insall, Denise Crane, Food and Drink FederationPeter Bradnock, The British Poultry CouncilJohn Sloss Moy Park

