Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36377407›Full record

SynthesisWaste management & research : the journal of the International Solid Wastes and Public Cleansing Association, ISWA2023

Understanding food waste-reducing platforms: A mini-review.

Fabio de Almeida Oroski, Jessica Monteiro da Silva

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Waste management & research : the journal of the International Solid Wastes and Public Cleansing Association, ISWA, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Fabio de Almeida OroskiSchool of Chemistry, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro (UFRJ), Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0002-8321-9889
Jessica Monteiro da SilvaSchool of Chemistry, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro (UFRJ), Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Food waste is one of the main obstacles to transitioning to sustainable and circular food systems. Food waste-reducing platforms (FWRPs) have emerged as low-cost alternatives by donating or commercializing surpluses and non-commercial food. However, as a recent phenomenon, little is known about their actual contribution to the fight against food waste. This study aims to employ a systematic review of the literature to understand the main issues of FWRPs. Our results indicate that technology plays multiple roles in FWRPs: enabling the sharing of surpluses by connecting supply and demand, monitoring and generating data on waste, among others. However, technology is insufficient for food recovery. FWRPs' business models must be aligned with the sustainability concept, encompassing environmental, economic and social benefits. Innovators must design and prototype solutions to address these various intended functions. This study points out many barriers to implementing these digital platforms, such as delivering multiple benefits for heterogeneous actors. Other barriers involve building trust and changing the behaviour of actors concerning their food habits. The scarcity of empirical studies has limited a better understanding of FWRPs and their actual ability to tackle food waste on a large scale. Despite the limitations found in the literature, digital platforms are an interesting solution to food waste management by promoting food waste prevention and reduction strategies at the source.

Indexed as

Refuse DisposalWaste ManagementFoodFood Supplycircular economyDigital platformsfood sharingfood wastefood waste reduction technologiessystematic review

Identifiers

PMID36377407
PMCPMC10108325

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.