TYPE Original Research PUBLISHED 09 October 2023 DOI 10.3389/fnut.2023.1249310 Predicting food waste in OPEN ACCESS households with children: socio-economic and food-related EDITED BY Luca Secondi, University of Tuscia, Italy REVIEWED BY Meleksen Akin, behavior factors Iğdır Üniversitesi, Türkiye Nino Adamashvili, University of Foggia, Italy Pietro Tonini   1, Pere Muñoz Odina   1,2 and *CORRESPONDENCE Xavier Gabarrell Durany   1,2* Xavier Gabarrell Durany 1 Sostenipra Research Group (2017 SGR 1683), Unitat de excelencia Maria de Maetzu MDM CEX2019- Xavier.Gabarrell@uab.cat 000940-M, Institut de Ciència i Tecnologia Ambientals (ICTA-UAB), Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, RECEIVED 28June 2023 Barcelona, Spain, 2 Department of Chemical, Biological and Environmental Engineering, School of ACCEPTED 08 September 2023 Engineering, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona (UAB), Barcelona, Spain PUBLISHED 09 October 2023 CITATION Tonini P, Odina PM and Durany XG (2023) Predicting food waste in households with Introduction: The consumption phase accounts for approximately half of the children: socio-economic and food-related food waste generated within the food system. Numerous studies have identified behavior factors. Front. Nutr. 10:1249310. families with children as the primary contributors to food waste. The aims of this doi: 10.3389/fnut.2023.1249310 paper is to enhance the comprehension of food waste behaviors in households COPYRIGHT with children by characterizing it and studying how socioeconomic characteristics © 2023 Tonini, Odina and Durany. This is an and food-related behaviors can predict it. open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License Methods: A survey was conducted among 806 families with children, categorized (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction by the child’s age and family structure. The study utilized descriptive statistics in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) to summarize the food waste behaviors and binary regression to evaluate the are credited and that the original publication in predictive abilities of 12 variable related to the socio-economic characteristic, this journal is cited, in accordance with purchase, and preparation behaviors and diet quality factors. accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which Results: Perishable food items, such as fruits, vegetables, cereal-based product, does not comply with these terms. and dairy products, were the primary items wasted in households with children. Two patterns of food waste were identified: inadequate food management leading to small amounts of waste in families with young and middle-aged children, and over-purchasing perishable items leading to waste in other households with children. Household type and purchasing habits were significant predictors, while the purchaser’s age and buying channel showed lower predictive capacity. Discussion: Policies to reduce food waste should prioritize raising awareness among children, promoting good practices at the household level, and creating favorable conditions during purchases. Strategies include enlisting children’s participation in meal planning and food preparation as well as limiting the promotion of ultra-processed products and incentivizing the sale of bulk products at supermarket. KEYWORDS waste, household, parametric model, food related behavior, socio-economic Highlights – Perishable foods and dairy product are the most important contributors of food waste; – Two distinct patterns of food waste identified in households with children; – Household type and shopping list use as key factors in predicting food waste generation; – Policies should focus on young families with small and medium-sized children; Frontiers in Nutrition 01 frontiersin.org Tonini et al. 10.3389/fnut.2023.1249310 1. Introduction questionnaire-based studies (13, 15, 26), the objective of this research was not to measure the amount of food waste produced at home but The exponential growth of the global population by 2050 is rather to determine which households with children were more likely expected to drive a 50% increase in demand for food products, thereby to produce food waste at home. A binary regression model was used intensifying resource consumption and greenhouse gas emissions to assess the predicting capacity of the socioeconomic factors and associated with the food system (1, 2). Therefore, it is crucial to food-related behaviors in the household with children. The variable increase resource use efficiency to prevent food insecurity and reduce included in the model were identified in studies with the same focus the food system’s environmental impact in the foreseeable future. but with different sample designs (13, 15, 20, 27, 28). The results were Among the strategies, the reduction of food waste has been identified used to identify interventions and policy implications that can target as a practical measure to improve resource use efficiency and increase specific aspects of drivers to influence food waste behaviors. food availability while reducing pressure on natural resources (3). In particular, the consumption stage of the food value chain has received increasing attention, as it generates the highest contribution in terms 2. Methods of quantities and environmental impacts (4, 5). Consequently, reducing domestic food waste has become a crucial global target 2.1. Study design under Sustainable Development Goal 12.3 (6), particularly in high- income regions such as the United States of America and Europe, The current investigation is part of an exploratory analysis that where the problem is particularly acute (7). investigates household expenses, food waste behavior, and residue Domestic food waste comprises spoilage, products thrown away generation in the population of Cerdanyola del Valles, a municipality without use, and leftover meals (8). Food spoilage constitutes the bulk situated in the Vallès Occidental region of Catalunya, Spain, with an of food waste and is easy to estimate since the entire product is estimated population of 60,000 people (29). Three online surveys with discarded; meanwhile, leftovers are the least quantifiable form of food different designs and objectives were conducted during the study, waste among consumers (9). The composition of household waste involving 1,854 households in the municipality. Our study primarily comprises items that are associated with high levels of administered the questionnaire to 806 households, with 23% consumption and low economic value (10). Specifically, perishable responding to at least one of the two preceding surveys. The items such as fruits, vegetables, and baked goods are responsible for questionnaire collected data on food waste behaviors, socioeconomic generating more than half of the food waste produced by households, characteristics, food purchase and preparation behaviors, and diet whereas animal-based products such as meat, fish, and eggs contribute quality. A professional market research organization was contracted to a negligible proportion of the waste stream [(11, 12)]. for the recruitment and data collection of the survey. The sample was Many authors revealed that households with children tend to selected based on the percentage of households with young children generate more food waste than households without children (13–17). (<5 years old) (27%), households with middle age children (5–17 years In particular, research has demonstrated that the quantity of food old)(36%), households with mayor age children (18–30 years old) waste increases as the number of children in the household increases, (25%) and single-parent households (mother or father, and the drivers of food waste may vary based on the child’s age (18). children<30 years old)(12%) present in the Spanish population with Households with young children and adolescents commonly over- representative quotas for gender and age (Sampling error: 3.8%) (30). purchase and over-prepare food due to their changing food For further details on the socio-demographic characteristic lifecycle preferences (15), picky eating behaviors (19), and parental intention stage see also Supplementary Table S1 in the Supplementary Material. to provide nutritious and suitable meals for their children (20). In Only the person responsible for at least half of the shopping trips contrast, in households with older children, the primary reason for and preparing meals at home were involved in the study. The survey food waste is the difficulty in predicting their eating habits, such as encompassed a total of 14 questions that were administered in both their presence during mealtimes (21). the Catalan and Spanish languages. The initial segment of the Despite this evidence, there still needs to be more representative, questionnaire centered on food waste behaviors, while the subsequent reliable primary data on food waste generation at the household with segment inquired into socioeconomic attributes and food-related children level (22). In particular, more empirical studies are required behaviors. The survey was conducted online and presential between to unveil the drivers of food waste and existing framework conditions October 2022 with CAWI methodology, for a total of 15 min for each leading to domestic food waste in these household (23). This interview. The in-person interview was conducted in supermarkets, segmentation is required to pave the way to curb domestic food waste municipal markets, and grocery shops to obtain a heterogeneous and point out directions to design policies and interventions sample. Before administering the questionnaire, a pre-test was carried specifically for this type of household (24). Indeed, interventions out with 25 families with children to check the comprehensibility of targeting specific characteristics of homogeneous groups of consumers the questions and answers and to calculate the average interview time. have been proven to be more effective than “one-size-fits-all” ones (25). The aim of this paper is to enhance the comprehension of food 2.2. Ethical statement waste behaviors in households with children by characterizing it and studying how socioeconomic characteristics and food-related The Research Ethics Committee of the Autonoma University of behaviors can predict it. A questionnaire was administered to 806 Barcelona (Barcelona, Spain) approved this study protocol (code families with children categorized by life-cycle stages based on the number 5539). All procedures were in accordance with the ethical child’s age and family composition. Unlike previous standards established by the Declaration of Helsinki (31). All Frontiers in Nutrition 02 frontiersin.org Tonini et al. 10.3389/fnut.2023.1249310 respondents were informed about the objectives and procedures of the different times throughout the week”). The organization of the purchase study and provided informed consent before filling out the survey, was assessed with yes or no questions related to the realization of a which was compliant with the General Data Protection Regulation shopping list. Furthermore, the preparation behavior was identified (GDPR). The processing of personal data complies with current based on the number of times the household prepares food at home Spanish and European legal regulations on data protection. during a week (answer format: four-point scale ranging from one time per week to daily). Finally, the diet quality at home was assessed with either the frequency of fresh food consumption (Seven-point scale 2.3. Food waste behavior ranging from once a fortnight to never to daily) and the type of diet through a multiple-choice question (answer format:” Mainly animal- Respondents were asked whether they had discarded edible food based, animal product consumption >4 days per week” and “Mainly in the past seven days to investigate food waste behavior. Food waste plant-based (animal product consumption <4 days per week”). was defined as any edible food, liquid or solid, not intended for human consumption, including disposal in the garbage bin, use as pet food, or composting organic matter, as defined by the High-Level Panel of 2.5. Data analysis Experts on Food Security and Nutrition (32). Therefore, the study excluded the inedible portion of the products to identify only the The statistical analysis for this study was performed using the latest household that discarded food which could have been consumed. A available version of R software (R-4.3.0). In particular, the analysis was seven-day recall period for the food waste question was intended to divided into two subsequent steps such as (1) the descriptive statistics simplify responses and reduce potential respondent bias (33). to summarize the data and (2) the binary logistic regression to assess In order to characterize food waste, the person responsible for the variable’s capacity to predict food waste generation. purchasing food was asked to list the products or dishes that had been First, the socioeconomic and food-related behaviors were analyzed discarded during the week. The questionnaire’s administrator and summarized. Then the waste generated during the last seven days, subsequently categorized the product or dish into food product the number of wasted products, product group, and the disposal reason categories, such as fresh vegetables, fresh fruit, fresh bread, cereal were examined regarding the household life cycle stage. The analysis at products, milk and dairy products, animal-based products (e.g., fish, household level has a specific interest regarding potential policy and meat, and eggs), frozen or canned products, and ready-to-eat or prevention measures. Then, the relationship between food waste ready-to-made products. If a dish was composed of multiple products, behavior and the socio-demographic variable and food behavior was only the category of the main ingredient was recorded in the assessed though a binary logistic regression. A dummy variable called questionnaire. Additionally, the disposal reason of the product “Declared food waste” was used as a dependent variable in the binary category was recorded to classify them in quantity-related problems logistic regression, and the 14 variables were used as explanatory at purchase, quantity-related problems at home and durability. The variables. After the first round of analysis, the explanatory variables quantity-related problems are related to the purchase of a too large that were not significant were excluded, and a second regression was packaging size or wrong product as well as the preparation of too performed with the remaining variables. A value of p of less than 0.05 much food at home. Meanwhile, durability is associated to the fact was considered statistically significant. Multicollinearity was checked that a product becomes spoilt, unsavory or past the best-before or using Pearson correlation to determine the correlation between use-by date. independent variables. The outliers have been examined and removed from the numerical variables such as age and household monthly purchase. The results were presented with an interval corresponding to 2.4. Socio-economic characteristics and a confidence level of 95%. ANOVA analysis was performed to assess food-related behaviors the relative importance of the variable on predicting food waste generation. Furthermore, the accuracy test was conducted to evaluate The socioeconomic characteristics and the food-related behavior the predictive performance of the logistic regression model. Specifically, are listed in Tables 1, 2. The socio-demographic variables considered the proportion of correct predictions over 500 observations obtained were the type of household with children, the age and working status from the same model was assessed. As a fundamental diagnostic of the responsible for the purchase, the size of the household, and measure for logistic regression, the accuracy test provides valuable monthly household income. In particular, the responsible for purchase insights into the model’s predictive accuracy. was asked to provide numerical values for the age, number of household members, and monthly household income. Meanwhile, a multiple-choice question was applied to collect the data related to the 3. Results type of household and the working status (see Table 3). Regarding food purchase and preparation behavior, the Table 1 provides an overview of the demographic composition of questionnaire includes questions related to the main purchasing channel, the sample analyzed in this study. The majority of responsible the frequency and organization of food purchases, and the frequency of individuals for food purchases were female (70%), under the age of 54 food preparation. The main purchasing channel was identified among (79%), and employed part-time or full-time (78%). Approximately supermarkets, grocery shops, and alternative markets; meanwhile, the half of the families with children included in this study comprised less frequency of purchase was assessed with a multiple-choice question than four members (Mean: 3.57). Regarding household income, 16% (answer format: “I buy the majority of food in a single reported a monthly income below 1.500 Euros, while 32% reported a purchase+supplement shopping” and “I buy the majority of my food at monthly income greater than 3.500 Euros. Given that Catalonia’s Frontiers in Nutrition 03 frontiersin.org Tonini et al. 10.3389/fnut.2023.1249310 TABLE 1 Socio-demographic characteristics of the sample analyzed in Cerdanyola del Valles. Socio-economic factors Variable Missing value No. Observation Frequency Male 242 30% Gender 2 Female 562 70% <54 years old 636 79% Age 0 ≥54 years old 170 21% Employed 630 78% Work status 0 Not employed 176 22% <4 people 380 47% Household size 0 ≥4 people 423 53% Low income 116 16% Medium low-income 94 194 27% Household income Medium high-income 172 24% High-income 230 32% <500 Euro/month 410 61% Household food expenditure 132 >500 Euro/month 264 39% average net household income is 3,000 Euros per month (29), families the highest average number of discarded products, while single-parent reporting a monthly income below 1,500 Euros were defined as families (1.8) and families with adult children (1.5) reported the “low-income households.,” between 1.500 Euros and 2.000 Euros were lowest values. The food items most frequently discarded belonged to defined as “medium low-income household,” between 2.500 Euros and the category of vegetables (80%), followed by fruit (78%) and cereal- 3.500 Euros were defined as “medium high-income” and higher than based product (63%). Dairy products also represented a frequently 3.500 Euros “high-income household.” Among the families with discarded product group, with 25% of families reporting throwing children in the study, 61% reported spending less than 500 Euros per them away particularly, the household with young reported the month on food and non-alcoholic beverages, however several outliers highest percentage of dairy products wasted during the analysis were identified (mean: 537 Euros/month). This value is higher than (Figure 1). Meanwhile, animal-derived products such as meat, fish, the regional statistics reported for Catalonia, which indicates an and eggs were the least frequently discarded, along with ready-to- average monthly expenditure of 450 Euros on food and non-alcoholic prepare/eat products. beverages in families with children (34). The difference in reported Regarding the reasons for disposal, two out of three families expenditures may be attributed to the difficulty responsible individuals reported throwing away most of their food items without having used face in accurately estimating the amount spent on food and beverages them. The vast majority of the food were wasted due to the durability each month. This difficulty is supported by the fact that approximately of the product (76%), while only a tiny portion of the products were 15% of families could not respond to the expenditure question and the discarded due to quantity problems related at purchase (10%) or at presence of several outliers in the analysis. home (14%). In Figure 2, it can be observed that families with young Table 2 provides an overview of the food-related behaviors and middle-aged children reported the highest levels of food waste reported by families with children. Consistent with regional food due to quantity-related issues. In these families, quantity problems consumption trends, half of the households purchase groceries from were mainly related to preparing too much food, and to a lesser extent, supermarkets/hypermarkets (35). Two out of three families make a to over-purchasing. Conversely, most of the families with adult single shopping trip and supplement it with smaller purchases children and single-parent households wasted products due to throughout the week, while one out of three families only shop at one durability. Furthermore, the causes of waste due to quantity were location. Moreover, 70% of families reported making a grocery list primarily related to over-purchasing, which was often attributed to based on what is needed at home before heading to the store. purchasing products in excessively large packaging sizes. Regarding food consumption behavior, 66% of families reported consuming fresh products at home daily, while almost all families consume animal products at home more than four days a week. 3.2. Regression results The last data analysis step was estimating the binary regression 3.1. Food waste generation in the models to investigate the drivers generating domestic food waste in household with children households with children. The regression model included six socioeconomic factors such as the sex of the responsible for purchase During the seven days analyzed through a questionnaire, 63% of (reference value: male), age of the responsible for purchase (from households with children reported disposing of less than two food smallest to largest, numerical value), working status of the responsible items. Families with young (3.2) and middle-aged (2.4) children had for purchase (reference value: employed), type of household Frontiers in Nutrition 04 frontiersin.org Tonini et al. 10.3389/fnut.2023.1249310 TABLE 2 Food-related behaviors of the household with children analyzed in Cerdanyola del Valles. Food-related behavior Variable No. Observation Frequency factors Supermarket 418 52% Market channel Other: grocery store, municipal market, alternative market 388 48% How do you organize your food I buy the majority of food in a single purchase+supplement shopping 574 71% shopping? I buy the majority of my food at different times throughout the week 232 29% Do you prepare a shopping list before Yes 556 69% purchasing? No 250 31% How do you organize the food I cook every day 126 16% preparation at home? I do not cook every day 680 84% Mainly animal-based(animal product consumption >4 days per week) 774 96% How do you define your diet? Mainly plant-based (animal product consumption <4 days per week) 31 4% Frequency of fresh food consumption Daily 532 66% at home Not daily 274 34% (reference: household with young children), household size (from probability of generating food waste than those who obtained their smallest to largest, numerical value), annual household income food from the supermarket/hypermarket channel (odds ratio = 1.54, (reference value: <2.500 Euro per month) and household expenditure p < 0.05). Moreover, a lower probability of food waste was associated in food (from smallest to largest, numerical value). In addition, the with creating a shopping list before grocery shopping (odds food-related behavior included six factors in the regression model as ratio = 1.82, p < 0.05). the primary purchase channel (reference value: supermarket/ The ANOVA analysis highlighted that the household type (LR hypermarket), frequency of purchase (reference value: one general Chisq = 20.7) and the realization of the shopping list before purchase purchase per week + complimentary shopping), elaboration of a (LR Chisq = 7.6) are the factors with the higher impact on the variation shopping list (reference value: yes), frequency of food preparation in the prediction of food waste generation. On the other hand, the age (reference: daily), the type of diet (reference value: mainly animal- responsible for the purchase (LR Chisq = 6.6) and the purchase based(animal product consumption >4 days per week) and the channel for groceries (LR Chisq = 6.1) have a lower impact on frequency of fresh product consumption (reference value: daily). the prediction. The logistic regression model successfully identified four predictors of food waste generation in households with children. Table 3 illustrates each factor’s variables, degree of significance, odds 4. Discussion ratio at the 95% confidence level, and the results of the ANOVA analysis. After the first round of the binary regression model, four 4.1. Food waste characterization in the factors with statistically significant parameters were retained and household with children inputted in the final regression model. Table 2 illustrates each factor’s variables, degree of significance, odds ratio at the 95% confidence The data set showed that 31% of the households did not record level, and the results of the ANOVA analysis. No factors were excluded food waste during the previous seven days. Related information from due to multicollinearity during the analysis. The outlier analysis food waste studies realized in Spain, Italy, and Denmark suggest that excluded 20% of the data concerning monthly household expenditure, between 15 and 40% of respondents to questionnaires stated not while no outliers were identified for the age of the household head. For wasting any edible food within a regular week or during the previous further details on the results of the first regression model see week (27, 28, 35). As self-reported food waste is prone to social Supplementary Table S2 in the Supplementary Material. desirability and memory bias (33), the request to declare whether the Among the socioeconomic variables examined, the age of the household wastes some edible product instead of quantifying household head and family type were significant predictors of food we attempted to minimize this bias. Indeed, several studies found self- waste generation. The analysis revealed a negative relationship reported food waste highly subjected to underreporting (13, 36, 37), between the age of the household head and the likelihood of food especially in households with multiple members (38). Despite our waste generation, indicating that older household heads were efforts, the findings of our study are influenced by subjective associated with a lower probability of generating food waste (odds perceptions of edibility, particularly when determining whether certain ratio = 1.04, p < 0.01). In terms of family type, households with adult parts of a food item, such as vegetable peels, are edible or not. This children (odds ratio = 2.27, p < 0.05) and single-parent families (odds makes it challenging to categorize food products as either edible or ratio = 2.8, p < 0.001) were found to have a lower probability of wasting inedible in advance. However, unlike other studies that rely on food compared to households with small and medium-sized children. questionnaires to measure household food waste, we aimed to gain a Regarding food-related behaviors, households that reported procuring more nuanced understanding of households with children prone to their food from grocery stores and municipal markets had a lower generating food waste. Frontiers in Nutrition 05 frontiersin.org Tonini et al. 10.3389/fnut.2023.1249310 TABLE 3 Socio-economic and food-related behaviors identifies as predictors for food waste generation in the household with children. Variable Odd ration Confidential level 95% Pr > Chi2 LR Chisq Lower bound Upper bound Age of the responsible of 1.0 1.0 1.1 <0.001 6.6 purchase Household with young children Household with middle-age 1.0 0.6 1.6 0.83 20.7 children Household with adult children 2.2 1.2 4.2 >0.01 Single-parents household 2.8 1.5 5.5 >0.001 Main purchase channel: Supermarket 6.1 Main channel: no supermarket 1.6 1.1 2.3 >0.05 Realize shopping list (No) 7.6 Realize shopping list(Yes) 1.8 1.2 2.8 >0.05 The probability of declared food waste is expressed in odds ratio with the upper and lower bound to achieve a confidence level of 95%. FIGURE 1 Product categories wasted in the different types of household with children. Unsurprisingly perishable food, such as fruits, vegetables, and cereal- middle-aged children exhibit a higher prevalence of quantity-related based product, are the primary items discarded, as previous studies have issues in the context of serving or preparing excessive food compared to shown (13, 39). In addition, our findings indicate that dairy product other family types. Such problems may be attributed to these households’ contribute significantly to domestic food waste in households with young challenges in providing healthy and appropriate food for their children children and middle-aged individuals. This result highlights the (20, 42, 43) while also managing their children’s finicky eating habits (15). importance of not excluding a specific dairy product, such as milk, from The analysis confirmed the higher presence of quantity-related problems food waste quantification studies in households with children, as it is a in families with young and middle-aged children. Additionally, it was common practice to exclude liquids in current literature (28, 40). highlighted that households with older children and single-parent Respondents reported spoilage as the primary reason for food waste in households reported the most significant waste causes due to spoilt and their homes, which aligns with other literature (14, 36). quantity-related problems during purchase. This evidence suggests the Previous research by Herzberg et al. (13), Koivopuro et al. (41), and presence of two distinct patterns of food waste in the household with Falasconi et al. (27) has indicated that households with young and children. Specifically, households with young and middle-aged children Frontiers in Nutrition 06 frontiersin.org Tonini et al. 10.3389/fnut.2023.1249310 FIGURE 2 Reasons for disposal are listed for the different type of the households with children. The reasons for disposal included in the analysis are the quantity- problems at purchase, home and spoilt. appear to waste food due to inadequate food management strategies, for other planning behaviors, which might explain the increased resulting in frequent small amounts of waste. In contrast, food waste in occurrence of food waste (46). Indeed, Quested et al. (37) have shown other households with children, and more in general to the other type of a robust positive association between the creation of shopping lists households, may result from over-purchasing perishable items discarded and “planning behavior,” such as the premeditated planning of meals, before consumption. inspection of existing food inventories before shopping, employment of freezing techniques to prolong the shelf life of food, and repurposing of leftovers. 4.2. Prediction of food waste generation In addition to the type of household and the purchase planning, through socio-demographic and the buyer’s age and the purchasing channel were found to be factors food-related behavior variables with predictive power within the model. The inverse relationship between the age of the person in charge of food purchasing and the Binary logistic regression identified four variables to identify probability of generating food waste is consistent with previous studies which households and behaviors should be prioritized for food waste (13, 36, 47). As well as other studies have also reported a higher reduction. Household type and making a shopping list before going likelihood of waste among individuals who purchase groceries from shopping are the two most influential factors in the model studied. supermarkets (48–50). Specifically, products in predetermined The higher likelihood of food waste in families with young and packaging or products on discount (i.e., 3×2) induce consumers to buy middle-aged children empirically confirms the child’s age as a valid more food than necessary for their families. In addition to the method variable for predicting food waste generation, consistent with the of selling products, the presence of ultra-processed food items such as qualitative analysis of Kansal et al. (18). The greater time and money unhealthy snacks, frozen pizza, ice cream, and flavored yogurt in constraints may underlie this higher likelihood of food waste, as supermarkets has been indicated as a reason for food waste generation indicated by Parizeau et al. (14). Meanwhile, careful grocery shopping at home. Indeed, consuming these products, particularly appreciated planning has been confirmed as a critical behavior to reduce food by adolescents and young children (51), can compete with healthy waste at home, even for families with children. Many studies have product products such as fruits and vegetables served during stated that careful grocery shopping planning is an effective tool to mealtimes. Graham-Rowe et al. (20) showed that some parents prevent overbuying and, consequently, food waste (14, 44, 45). frequently over-portion dinner for children to discourage eating Moreover, the limited use of the shopping list could serve as a proxy unhealthy snacks, which could lead to significant food waste. Frontiers in Nutrition 07 frontiersin.org Tonini et al. 10.3389/fnut.2023.1249310 Moreover, supermarkets are known for their persuasive marketing practices, and create favorable conditions for reducing food waste in appeals targeting children. Chen et al. (52) and Haselhoff et al. (53) these families. Placing the child at the center of policies to raise highlight that children can employ persuasion, begging, and emotional awareness about food waste is crucial, given their ability to directly and appeals to influence their parents into purchasing products with indirectly, influence waste (18). In this regard, promoting a healthy diet attractive packaging or advertised on television. and describing the impact of food waste in schools can help reduce In contrast to several studies, household income (36, 47, 54, 55) waste in families in the short term and create greater awareness of food and the number of household members (56–58) were not found to waste in future families in the long term (15). As well as promoting be predicting factors for food waste generation in families with local and seasonal products and menus mainly based on plants within children. The focus of this study on a specific segment of the schools can play a crucial role in educating children and supporting population characterized by a similar number of household members families in this critical aspect of daily life (67). Regarding this aspect, and monthly income levels explains this finding. This result puts into Šimanskienė et al. (68) recommended that educational institutions perspective the importance of these two factors as predictors of food design lessons or lectures centered around responsible consumption waste within the population, given that families with children typically topics. In particular, the development of methodological resources, have higher incomes and a more significant number of household such as exercise books and the creation of computer games that members. However, the fact that the analysis does not quantify food demonstrate the impact of individual consumption and behavior, can waste but only assesses whether or not waste was generated in the last help educate students about responsible consumption and its role in week may explain why these two variables were not significant. environmental preservation. Regarding the methodology used in this study, the application of Concerning good practices, the policies should stimulate planning predictive models in food waste research during the consumption behavior within the household with children, such as creating a phase is increasing during the last decade (59). Previous research has shopping list, pre-planning meals and inspecting existing food stocks demonstrated how predictive models can be customized for various before purchasing (37). These behaviors can be stimulated through the sectors with limited utilization of these statistical techniques (60, 61). promotion of online tools and apps for creating shopping lists (69), The food waste behavior was analyzed both with parametric (17, 62) managing existing food stocks (70). Given the significance of food and no parametric machine learning algorithm (63, 64). The choice to waste related to quantity problems arising from over-preparation of employ a parametric model for this research is based on two primary food, it would be beneficial to assist households in reusing leftoversby factors. Firstly, the analyzed variables have been observed in numerous providing recipes particularly for perishable product. This can studies, emphasizing the need for a well-established and interpretable be achieved by promoting food reusing apps [e.g., (71)], launching approach. Secondly, the main objective of this analysis is to achieve campaigns [e.g., (72)], and incorporating them into product accurate predictions rather than exploring intricate relationships or packaging. Moreover, enlisting children’s participation in activities uncovering hidden patterns within the data. Additionally, focusing on such as meal planning and food preparation, such as cooking together, a specific segment of the population helps mitigate the presence of are practices that have been found to have a constructive impact on outliers within the sample, while the ample sample size enables the dietary patterns and food waste generation (18). model to be less susceptible to overfitting. Parametric models using Public policies should strive to create favorable conditions to both linear regressions (10, 13, 62) and logistic regression (17, 27, 28). reduce food waste in households with young and middle age children. These two predictive models differ in their output and data Firstly, policies should encourage responsible consumption within the requirements. Logistic regression, utilizing a dummy variable, population through awareness-raising campaigns (73). In particular, determines whether a household wastes food but does not provide parents should be informed as much as possible about the food waste information on the extent of the food waste. However, challenges and impact on the environment and the region in which they live. costs associated with quantitative analyses of consumption-related Concerns about food waste and moral attitudes (i.e., feelings of guilt food waste, along with uncertainties due to cognitive biases and when discarding food) are crucial to determine their intention not to different perceptions of food waste among users (65, 66), limit the waste food and reshape the individual attitude toward buying and scalability of the predictive linear regression model. The use of consuming food (74). For example, positive correlation between the categorical variables to assess food waste behavior (i.e., Declared food variables planning routines and awareness of environmental problems waste) enables quick and cost-effective data collection through has been observed by Fiore et al. (75). Secondly, specific policies are questionnaires giving the possibility to increase the number of samples required to incentivize the sale of bulk products and limit the analyzed. The increase in the number of studies on food waste is promotion of ultra-processed products in the supermarket. Focusing fundamental for deepening knowledge about food waste and on supermarkets is necessary since most people use this purchasing developing strategies to decrease it. channel as the main one due to time and money constraints. In this sense, promoting the sale of bulk products helps the shopper buy the exact amount of products needed for the household by limiting 4.3. Policy implications overbuying and reducing the generation of other packaging waste. Furthermore, developing customized packaging for products such as This section presents policy implications for addressing food waste fruits and vegetables targeted toward families with children could in households with children based on the findings of this research and partially alleviate quantity-related problems at purchase (i.e., less evidence from the literature. As highlighted by the analysis, policies quantity and more variety). On the other hand, to reduce the aimed at preventing food waste should focus on young families with consumption and potential distractions caused by ultra-processed small and medium-sized children. Specifically, policy actions are products when purchasing goods, limiting their promotion campaigns required to facilitate changes in the perception of waste, promote good aimed at adolescents and young children is crucial. One strategy to Frontiers in Nutrition 08 frontiersin.org Tonini et al. 10.3389/fnut.2023.1249310 achieve this is placing these products in less visible locations, such as research should focus on assessing which variable identified by logistic on top shelves or in areas the responsible shopper may not pass by. regression has the most significant weight. In this case, quantifying Finally, it is essential to mention that policies for managing organic food waste in a small sample would make it possible to define which waste should be implemented in addition to food waste prevention behavior should be prioritized in a given population segment. policies. Food waste management accounts for approximately one-third of the entire food system’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (76) due to the widespread use of landfilling and open dumping, both Data availability statement of which are strongly linked to high GHG emissions (77). By implementing the separate collections in the neighborhoods with a The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will high percentage of households with children, the potential to employ be made available by the authors, without undue reservation. low-carbon-footprint waste management technologies such as aerobic digestion and composting is increased, which can help to mitigate GHG emissions. This two-pronged approach of preventing and Author contributions managing organic waste is essential to decrease food waste and its impact on families with children in parallel. PT: Conceptualization, Data curation. XD, PO and PT: Formal Analysis. PT: Methodology. XD: Funding acquisition. XD: Project administration. PT: Roles/Writing — original draft. XD and PO: 5. Conclusion Writing — review & editing. All authors contributed to the article and approved the submitted version. The issue of food waste is a significant challenge faced by societies worldwide. This study adds to the growing body of literature on household food waste by examining the food waste behaviors of Funding households with children and identifying factors that can predict food waste generation. Our results show that perishable food items such as This study was funded by the European Union under the fruits, vegetables, bread, and dairy products are the primary items European Horizon 2020 research and innovation program under discarded. In particular, quantification analyses of food waste in grant agreement n° 862663 (Food Systems in European Cities, households with children should take into account liquid waste, FoodE); Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación under grant n° PID2021- especially from milk, to avoid underestimating the problem. The study 126845OB-C21 (MOVE4EDU, MCIN/AEI/10.13039/501100011033/ also identified two patterns of food waste in households with children: FEDER) and Maria de Maeztu award (CEX2019-000940-M); inadequate food management strategies resulting in frequent small Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación under grant n° TED2021- amounts of waste in families with young and middle-aged children, 130047B-C21 (BINAFET, MCIN/AEI/10.13039/501100011033/) and and over-purchasing perishable items discarded before consumption the European Union under the grant NextGenerationEU/PRTR. In in other households with children. addition, the research group as supported by the SGR 00734 funded These findings are crucial for policymakers and stakeholders as by the AGAUR, Generalitat de Catalunya. The publication reflects the they can help in developing targeted interventions to reduce household author’s views. The Research Executive Agency (REA) is not liable for food waste, particularly for families with young and middle-aged any use that may be made of the information contained therein. children. Based on our study, strategies to reduce food waste in households with children should focus on improving food management strategies and promoting planning behavior such as making shopping Conflict of interest lists. Schools can play a vital role in educating children and supporting families, while online tools and apps can encourage good practices The authors declare that the research was conducted in the such as planning and reusing leftovers. Policies that incentivize the sale absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could of bulk products and limit the promotion of ultra-processed items in be construed as a potential conflict of interest. supermarkets can also be implemented, along with policies for managing organic waste to decrease their impact on families with children. It is important to note that reducing household food waste Publisher’s note requires a multi-stakeholder approach involving policymakers, food manufacturers, retailers, and consumers. The results of this study All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors contribute to the growing body of literature on household food waste and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, and emphasize the importance of considering socio-demographic and or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product food-related behavior variables in predicting food waste generation that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its and implementing effective interventions. manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher. Future research using a predictive model for food waste behavior should focus on young people living alone or sharing a house, identified by different studies as the household type generating the Supplementary material highest kg per capita of food waste (13, 16, 41). As well as in comparing different populations with different levels of awareness on food waste The Supplementary material for this article can be found online aspects or shed light on the cultural impact of food waste. Finally, to at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnut.2023.1249310/ advance in the study of food waste in households with children, full#supplementary-material Frontiers in Nutrition 09 frontiersin.org Tonini et al. 10.3389/fnut.2023.1249310 References 1. IISD (International Institute for Sustainable Development) (2020). World 26. Abeliotis K, Lasaridi K, Chroni C. Attitudes and behaviour of Greek households population to reach 9.9 billion by 2050. Avaialable at: https://sdg.iisd.org/news/world- regarding food waste prevention. Waste Manag Res. (2014) 32:237–40. doi: population-to-reach-9-9-billion-by-2050/ 10.1177/0734242X14521681 2. Searchinger T, Waite R, Hanson C, Ranganathan J. Creating a sustainable food 27. Falasconi L, Cicatiello C, Franco S, Segrè A, Setti M, Vittuari M. Such a shame! A future: A menu of solutions to feed nearly 10 billion people by 2050. Washington: World study on self-perception of household food waste. Sustainability. (2019) 11:270. doi: Resource Institute (2019). 10.3390/su11010270 3. Schanes K, Giljum S, Hertwich E. Low carbon lifestyles: a framework to structure 28. Grasso AC, Olthof MR, Boevé AJ, van Dooren C, Lähteenmäki L, Brouwer IA. consumption strategies and options to reduce carbon footprints. J Clean Prod. (2016) Socio-demographic predictors of food waste behavior in Denmark and Spain. 139:1033–43. doi: 10.1016/J.JCLEPRO.2016.08.154 Sustainability. (2019) 11:3244. doi: 10.3390/su11123244 4. Jeswani HK, Figueroa-Torres G, Azapagic A. The extent of food waste generation 29. IDESCAT (Institut d’Estadística de Catalunya). (2022a). Municipality in figures. in the UK and its environmental impacts. Sustain Prod Consum. (2021) 26:532–47. doi: Avaialable at: https://www.idescat.cat/emex/?id=082665&lang=en. Accessed 15/5/2023. 10.1016/J.SPC.2020.12.021 30. MAGRAMA (Ministerio de agricultura, alimentación y medioambiente). (2021). 5. Scherhaufer S, Moates G, Hartikainen H, Waldron K, Obersteiner G. Environmental Report on food consumption in Spain. Madrid: Secretaría general Técnica centro impacts of food waste in Europe. Waste Manag. (2018) 77:98–113. doi: 10.1016/J. publicaciones. Available at: https://www.mapa.gob.es/es/alimentacion/temas/consumo- WASMAN.2018.04.038 tendencias/informe-consumo-alimentario-2021-baja-res_tcm30-624017.pdf Accessed 10/5/2023 6. United Nations. Transforming our world: The 2030 agenda for sustainable development; UN. New York, NY, USA: United Nation. (2015). 31. WMA (World Medical Association). World medical association declaration of Helsinki: ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. JAMA. 7. FAO (Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations) (2019). The state (2013) 310:2191–4. doi: 10.1001/jama.2013.281053 of food and agriculture: Moving forward on food loss and waste reduction. Rome. Licence: CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO. Available at: https://www.fao.org/3/ca6030en/ca6030en.pdf 32. HLPE High-Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition. Food losses and waste in the context of sustainable food systems. A report by the High Level Panel of 8. Silvennoinen K, Heikkilä L, Katajajuuri JM, Reinikainen A. Food waste volume and Experts on Food Security and Nutrition of the Committee on World Food Security, Rome. origin: case studies in the Finnish food service sector. Waste Manag. (2015) 46:140–5. (2014) 2014 doi: 10.1016/J.WASMAN.2015.09.010 33. Van Herpen E, van Geffen L, Nijenhuis-de Vries M, Holthuysen N, van der Lans 9. Lyndhurst B. (2007). Food behaviour consumer research: quantitative phase. Retail I, Quested T. A validated survey to measure household food waste. Methods X. (2019) Programme-food waste: final report. WRAP Available at: https://wrap.org.uk/sites/ 6:2767–75. doi: 10.1016/j.mex.2019.10.029 default/files/2020-12/Food-behaviour-consumer-research-quantitative-phase.pdf. Accessed 17/5/2023 34. IDESCAT (Institut d’Estadística de Catalunya. (2022b). Average annual net income of households. Avaialable at: https://www.idescat.cat/indicadors/?id=aec&n=15392&lan 10. Van der Werf P, Seabrook JA, Gilliland JA. Food for naught: using the theory of g=en. Accessed 15/5/2023. planned behaviour to better understand household food wasting behaviour. The Canadian Geographer/Le Géographe Canadien. (2019) 63:478–93. doi: 10.1111/ 35. MAGRAMA (Ministerio de agricultura, alimentación y medioambiente) (2022). cag.12519 Household food waste data. Available at: https://www.mapa.gob.es/es/alimentacion/ temas/desperdicio/desperdicio-alimentario-hogares/ 11. De Laurentiis V, Corrado S, Sala S. Quantifying household waste of fresh fruit and vegetables in the EU. Waste Manag. (2018) 77:238–51. doi: 10.1016/J. 36. Giordano C, Alboni F, Falasconi L. Quantities, determinants, and awareness of WASMAN.2018.04.001 households’ food waste in Italy: a comparison between diary and questionnaires quantities’. Sustainability. (2019) 11:3381. doi: 10.3390/su11123381 12. Scalvedi ML, Rossi L. Comprehensive measurement of Italian domestic food waste in a European framework. Sustainability. (2021) 13:1492. doi: 10.3390/su13031492 37. Quested TE, Marsh E, Stunell D, Parry AD. Spaghetti soup: the complex world of food waste behaviours. Resour Conserv Recycl. (2013) 79:43–51. doi: 10.1016/J. 13. Herzberg R, Schmidt TG, Schneider F. Characteristics and determinants of RESCONREC.2013.04.011 domestic food waste: a representative diary study across Germany. Sustainability (Switzerland). (2020) 12. doi: 10.3390/su12114702 38. WRAP (Waste and Resource Action Program). (2012). Household food and drink waste in the United Kingdom 2012. Available at: www.wrap.org.uk 14. Parizeau K, von Massow M, Martin R. Household-level dynamics of food waste production and related beliefs, attitudes, and behaviours in Guelph, Ontario. Waste 39. Gaiani S, Caldeira S, Adorno V, Segrè A, Vittuari M. Food wasters: profiling Manag. (2015) 35:207–17. doi: 10.1016/J.WASMAN.2014.09.019 consumers’ attitude to waste food in Italy. Waste Manag. (2018) 72:17–24. doi: 10.1016/j. wasman.2017.11.012 15. Visschers VHM, Wickli N, Siegrist M. Sorting out food waste behaviour: a survey on the motivators and barriers of self-reported amounts of food waste in households. J 40. Jörissen J, Priefer C, Bräutigam KR. Food waste generation at household level: Environ Psychol. (2016) 45:66–78. doi: 10.1016/J.JENVP.2015.11.007 results of a survey among employees of two European research centers in Italy and Germany. Sustainability. (2015) 7:2695–715. doi: 10.3390/su7032695 16. Von Massow M, Parizeau K, Gallant M, Wickson M, Haines J, Ma DWL, et al. Valuing the multiple impacts of household food waste. Front Nutr. (2019) 6. doi: 41. Koivupuro HK, Hartikainen H, Silvennoinen K, Katajajuuri JM, Heikintalo N, 10.3389/fnut.2019.00143 Reinikainen A, et al. Influence of socio-demographical, behavioural and attitudinal factors on the amount of avoidable food waste generated in Finnish households. Int J 17. Principato L, Secondi L, Pratesi CA. Reducing food waste: an investigation on the Consum Stud. (2012) 36:183–91. doi: 10.1111/j.1470-6431.2011.01080.x behaviour of Italian youths. Br Food J. (2015) 117:731–48. doi: 10.1108/BFJ-10-2013-0314 42. Carroll N, Wallace A, Jewell K, Darlington G, Ma DWL, Duncan AM, et al. 18. Kansal M, Ananda J, Mitsis A, Karunasena GG, Pearson D. Food waste in Association between diet quality and food waste in Canadian families: a cross-sectional households: children as quiet powerhouses. Food Qual Prefer. (2022) 98:104524. doi: study. Nutr J. (2020) 19:54. doi: 10.1186/s12937-020-00571-7 10.1016/J.FOODQUAL.2021.104524 43. Conrad Z, Niles MT, Neher DA, Roy ED, Tichenor NE, Jahns L. Relationship 19. Damen FWM, Luning PA, Fogliano V, Steenbekkers BLPA. What influences between food waste, diet quality, and environmental sustainability. PLoS One. (2018) 13. mothers’ snack choices for their children aged 2–7? Food Qual Prefer. (2019) 74:10–20. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0195405 doi: 10.1016/J.FOODQUAL.2018.12.012 44. Altintzoglou T, Skuland AV, Carlehög M, Sone I, Heide M, Honkanen P. Providing 20. Graham-Rowe E, Jessop DC, Sparks P. Identifying motivations and barriers to a food choice option increases children’s liking of fish as part of a meal. Food Qual Prefer. minimising household food waste. Resour Conserv Recycl. (2014) 84:15–23. doi: (2015) 39:117–23. doi: 10.1016/J.FOODQUAL.2014.06.013 10.1016/J.RESCONREC.2013.12.005 45. Secondi L, Principato L, Laureti T. Household food waste behaviour in EU-27 21. Evans D. Blaming the consumer – once again: the social and material contexts of countries: a multilevel analysis. Food Policy. (2015) 56:25–40. doi: 10.1016/j. everyday food waste practices in some English households. Crit Public Health. (2012) foodpol.2015.07.007 21:429–40. doi: 10.1080/09581596.2011.608797 46. Bellini S, Cardinali MG, Grandi B. A structural equation model of impulse buying 22. Xue L., Liu G. (2019). Introduction to global food losses and food waste. Saving food: behaviour in grocery retailing. J Retail Consum Serv. (2017) 36:164–71. doi: 10.1016/j. Production, supply chain, food waste and food consumption. jretconser.2017.02.001 23. Boulet M, Hoek A, Raven R. Towards a multi-level framework of household food 47. Stancu V, Haugaard P, Lähteenmäki L. Determinants of consumer food waste waste and consumer behaviour: untangling spaghetti soup. Appetite. (2021) 156:104856. behaviour: two routes to food waste. Appetite. (2016) 96:7–17. doi: 10.1016/j. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2020.104856 appet.2015.08.025 24. Vittuari M, Garcia Herrero L, Masotti M. (2023) How to reduce consumer food 48. Farr-Wharton G, Foth M, Choi JHJ. Identifying factors that promote consumer waste at household level: a literature review on drivers and levers for behavioural change. behaviours causing expired domestic food waste. J Consum Behav. (2014) 13:393–402. Sustainable Production and Consumption, 38, 104–114. ISSN 2352-5509 doi: 10.1002/cb.1488 25. Teeny JD, Siev JJ, Briñol P, Petty RE. A review and conceptual framework for 49. Yildirim H, Capone R, Karanlik A, Bottalico F, Debs P, Bilali H. Food wastage in understanding personalized matching effects in persuasion. J. Consum. Psychol. (2021) Turkey: an exploratory survey on household food waste. J. Food Nutrition Res. (2016) 31:382–414. doi: 10.1002/jcpy.1198 4:483–9. doi: 10.12691/jfnr-4-8-1,el Frontiers in Nutrition 10 frontiersin.org Tonini et al. 10.3389/fnut.2023.1249310 50. Ilyuk V. Like throwing a piece of me away: how online and in-store grocery Journal of cleaner production. Vol. 138. Part. (2016) 138:8–18. doi: 10.1016/j. purchase channels affect consumers’ food waste. J Retail Consum Serv. (2018) 41:20–30. jclepro.2016.06.018 doi: 10.1016/J.JRETCONSER.2017.11.003 64. Secondi L. Expiry dates, consumer behavior, and food waste: how would Italian 51. Reales-Moreno M, Tonini P, Escorihuela RM, Solanas M, Fernández-Barrés S, consumers react if there were no longer “best before” labels? Sustainability. (2019) Romaguera D, et al. Ultra-processed foods and drinks consumption is associated with 11:6821. doi: 10.3390/su11236821 psychosocial functioning in adolescents. Nutrients. (2022) 14. doi: 10.3390/nu14224831 65. Corrado S, Caldeira C, Eriksson M, Hanssen OJ, Hauser HE, van Holsteijn F, et al. 52. Chen X, Kassas B, Gao Z. Impulsive purchasing in grocery shopping: do the Food waste accounting methodologies: challenges, opportunities, and further shopping companions matter? J Retail Consum Serv. (2021) 60:102495. doi: 10.1016/J. advancements. Glob Food Sec. (2019) 20:93–100. doi: 10.1016/J.GFS.2019.01.002 JRETCONSER.2021.102495 66. Lebersorger S, Schneider F. Discussion on the methodology for determining food 53. Haselhoff V, Faupel U, Holzmüller HH. Strategies of children and parents during waste in household waste composition studies. Waste Manag. (2011) 31:1924–33. doi: shopping for groceries. Young Consum. (2014) 15:17–36. doi: 10.1108/YC-03-2013-00366 10.1016/j.wasman.2011.05.023 54. Tucker CA, Farrelly A. Household food waste: the implications of consumer choice 67. Benvenuti L, De Santis A, Santesarti F, Tocca L. An optimal plan for food in food from purchase to disposal. Local Environ. (2016) 21:682–706. doi: consumption with minimal environmental impact: the case of school lunch menús. J 10.1080/13549839.2015.1015972 Clean Prod. (2016) 129:704–13. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.03.051 55. Setti M, Falasconi L, Segrè A, Cusano I, Vittuari M. Italian consumers’ income and 68. Šimanskienė L, Paužuolienė J, Fiore M, Župerkienė E. Responsible consumption: food waste behavior. Br Food J. (2016) 118:1731–46. doi: 10.1108/BFJ-11-2015-0427 society habits in time of crisis In: D Vrontis, A Thrassou, Y Weber, SMR Shams, E 56. Bos Verma M, de Vreede L, Achterbosch T, Rutten MM. Consumers discard a lot Tsoukatos and L Efthymiou, editors. Business under crisis, volume III. Palgrave studies in more food than widely believed: estimates of global food waste using an energy gap cross-disciplinary business research, in association with euro med academy of business. approach and affluence elasticity of food waste. PLoS One. (2020) 15. doi: 10.1371/ Cham: Palgrave Macmillan (2022) journal.pone.0228369 69. ListOn (2022). Naladex Available at: . https://play.google.com/store/apps/ 57. Parfitt J, Barthel M, Macnaughton S. Food waste within food supply chains: details?id=shopping.list.free.lista.compra.gratis.liston&hl=en&gl=US quantification and potential for change to 2050. Philosophical transactions of the Royal 70. Outof Milk (2022), Out of Milk app. Available at: https://www.outofmilk.com/ Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences. (2010) 365:3065–81. doi: 10.1098/ Accessed 12/5/2023 rstb.2010.0126 71. Svuota Frigo (2022). Svuota Frigo App. Available at: https://play.google.com/store/ 58. Segrè A. (2014). Background paper on the economics of food loss and waste working apps/details?id=com.apphost.ricette&hl=en&gl=US paper global initiative on food loss and waste reduction SAVE FOOD: Global initiative on food loss and waste reduction background paper on the economics of food loss and waste 72. Recipe for Change Campaigns (2023). United nation program against food waste, working paper. Available at: www.fao.org/publications UNEP. Available at: https://www.unep.org/recipe-change-campaign Accessed 18/5/2023 59. Kim J, Knox K, Rundle-Thiele S. Theory application in food waste behaviour 73. Adamashvili N., Chiara F., Fiore M. (2019), Food loss and waste a global programs: a systematic literature review. Australasian J. Environ. Manag. (2022) responsibility?! In "ECONOMIA AGRO-ALIMENTARE", pp 825–846 29:344–67. doi: 10.1080/14486563.2022.2140211 74. Paužuolienė J, Šimanskienė L, Fiore M. What about responsible consumption? A 60. Akin M, Eyduran SP, Eyduran E, Reed BM. Analysis of macro nutrient related survey focused on food waste and consumer habits In: Sustainability, 14 (14), 8509, vol. growth responses using multivariate adaptive regression splines. Plant cell. Tissue and 14. MDPI: AG. Retrieved from (2022) doi: 10.3390/su14148509 Organ Culture (PCTOC). (2020) 140:661–70. doi: 10.1007/s11240-019-01763-8 75. Fiore M, Pellegrini G, La Sala P, Conte A, Liu B. Attitude toward food waste 61. Akin M, Hand C, Eyduran E, Reed BM. Predicting minor nutrient requirements reduction: the case of Italian consumers. International J. Global. Small Business. (2017) of hazelnut shoot cultures using regression trees. Plant cell. Tissue and Organ Culture 9:185–201. doi: 10.1504/IJGSB.2017.088921 (PCTOC). (2018) 132:545–59. doi: 10.1007/s11240-017-1353-x 76. Zhu J, Luo Z, Sun T, Li W, Zhou W, Wang X, et al. Cradle-to-grave emissions from 62. Iori E, Masotti M, Falasconi L, Risso E, Segrè A, Vittuari M. Tell me what you waste food loss and waste represent half of total greenhouse gas emissions from food systems. and I’ll tell you who you are: an eight-country comparison of consumers’ food waste Nature Food. (2023) 4:247–56. doi: 10.1038/s43016-023-00710-3 habits. Sustainability. (2022) 15:430. doi: 10.3390/su15010430 77. Wang Y, Levis JW, Barlaz MA. An assessment of the dynamic global warming 63. Mondéjar-Jiménez J, Ferrari G, Secondi L, Principato L. From the table to waste: impact associated with long-term emissions from landfills. Environ Sci Technol. (2020) an exploratory study on behaviour towards food waste of Spanish and Italian youths. 54:1304–13. doi: 10.1021/acs.est.9b04066 Frontiers in Nutrition 11 frontiersin.org