Data is fugly. Should be order by the per capita number , unless the intent was to mislead
Totally. There’s really no point in using anything /except/ per capita!
Not necessarily.
This way shows where the biggest impact can be made. If you’re deciding where to spend money to address the issue, your money is better spent in the top four no matter what the per capita numbers are.
Actually, that’s a good thing, because if some extraordinary event happens, like a gigantic volcano eruption, we want to have food to spare.
How much is this percentage wise?
NPR/USDA estimate that adults eat about 2000 pounds of food per year, so 94kg/2000 pounds = 10%. 73 kg/2000 pounds = 8%. Not bad, honestly, considering, for example, a banana peel is 12% of the banana.
So if they’ve shown percentage the numbers wouldn’t really fit the agenda. Biased article is biased
Looked at the UN report that this chart is trying to use and found this: “Food waste” is defined as food and the associated inedible parts removed from the human food supply chain.
Wait, so they’re including inedible parts like husks, peels, etc. that can’t actually be used for food? So this is more a combination of food waste and food byproducts, then. It might say more about the types of foods that these countries prefer than how wasteful there are if they consume more foods with inedible byproducts.
The motivation behind doing it was that different cultures treat what is food differently as is exemplified in their example of chicken feet. However, that also raises big questions on the efficacy of this data since houses which use raw fruits and vegetables are probably likely to have higher food waste by this definition since most people aren’t buying bone-in meat. But since a big objective of their report was tackling greenhouse gas generation from said food waste, I guess it makes sense in that context? I tried to figure out the exact methodology by which they estimate their numbers but I wasn’t able to find it.
