Food waste (FW) is a global problem that is receiving increasing attention due to its environmental and economic impacts. Appropriate FW prevention, valorization, and management routes could mitigate or avoid these effects. Life cycle thinking and approaches, such as life cycle costing (LCC), may represent suitable tools to assess the sustainability of these routes. This study analyzes different LCC methodological aspects and approaches to evaluate FW management and valorization routes. A systematic literature review was carried out with a focus on different LCC approaches, their application to food, FW, and waste systems, as well as on specific methodological aspects. The review consisted of three phases: a collection phase, an iterative phase with experts' consultation, and a final literature classification. Journal papers and reports were retrieved from selected databases and search engines. The standardization of LCC methodologies is still in its infancy due to a lack of consensus over definitions and approaches. Research on the life cycle cost of FW is limited and generally focused on FW management, rather than prevention or valorization of specific flows. FW prevention, valorization, and management require a consistent integration of LCC and Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) to avoid tradeoffs between environmental and economic impacts. This entails a proper investigation of methodological differences between attributional and consequential modelling in LCC, especially with regard to functional unit, system boundaries, multi-functionality, included cost, and assessed impacts. Further efforts could also aim at finding the most effective and transparent categorization of costs, in particular when dealing with multiple stakeholders sustaining costs of FW. Interpretation of results from LCC of FW should take into account the effect on larger economic systems. Additional key performance indicators and analytical tools could be included in consequential approaches.

The COVID-19 pandemic unveiled the fragility of food sovereignty in cities and confirmed the close connection urban dwellers have with food. Although the pandemic was not responsible for a systemic failure, it suggested how citizens would accept and indeed support a transition toward more localized food production systems. As this attitudinal shift is aligned with the sustainability literature, this work aims to explore the tools and actions needed for a policy framework transformation that recognizes the multiple benefits of food systems, while considering local needs and circumstances. This perspective paper reviews the trends in production and consumption, and systematizes several impacts emerged across European food systems in response to the first wave of pandemic emergency, with the final aim of identifying challenges and future strategies for research and innovation toward the creation of resilient and sustainable city/region food systems. The proposal does not support a return to traditional small-scale economies that might not cope with the growing global population. It instead stands to reconstruct and upscale such connections using a “think globally act locally” mind-set, engaging local communities, and making existing and future citizen-led food system initiatives more sustainable. The work outlines a set of recommended actions for policy-makers: support innovative and localized food production, training and use of information and communication technology for food production and distribution; promote cross-pollination among city/region food systems; empower schools as agents of change in food provision and education about food systems; and support the development of assessment methodologies and the application of policy tools to ensure that the different sustainability dimensions of the food chain are considered.

Economies have begun to shift from linear to circular, adopting, among others, waste-to-energy approaches. Waste management is known to be a paramount challenge, and food waste (FW) in particular, has gained the interest of several actors due to its potential impacts and energy recovery opportunities. However, the selection of alternative valorization scenarios can pose several queries in certain contexts. This paper evaluates four FW valorization scenarios based on anaerobic digestion and composting, in comparison to landfilling, by applying a consistent decision-making framework through a combination of linear programming, Life Cycle Thinking (LCT), and Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP). The evaluation was built upon a case study of five universities in Costa Rica and portrayed the trade-offs between environmental impacts and cost categories from the scenarios and their side flows. Results indicate that the landfill scenario entails higher Global Warming Potential and Fresh Water Eutrophication impacts than the valorization scenarios; however, other impact categories and costs are affected. Centralized recovery facilities can increase the Global Warming Potential and the Land Use compared to semi-centralized ones. Experts provided insights, regarding the ease of adoption of composting, in contrast to the potential of energy sources substitution and economic savings from anaerobic digestion.