Contents
- food waste in home kitchens statistics: Food groups wasted in Dutch homes
- food waste in home kitchens statistics: Why households discard food
- food waste in home kitchens statistics: Household food waste in Malaysia
- food waste in home kitchens: Environmental impacts and disposal routes
- food waste in home kitchens statistics: Diary studies and measurement
- Sources
food waste in home kitchens statistics: Food groups wasted in Dutch homes
In the Netherlands, household consumers wasted 4.3 kg of bread per person per year in 2025, the largest amount among the five leading solid-food groups listed in the report. Vegetables followed at 3.6 kg, fruit at 3.5 kg, potatoes and potato products at 1.9 kg, and dairy at 1.9 kg per person per year. Together, those five groups made up 60% of the weight of household food waste. These are quantities of solid food wasted at home, expressed per person over a year; drinks are outside the report’s headline measure. Dutch 2025 report, section 3.1
| Product group | Waste in 2025 (kg per person per year) |
|---|---|
| Bread | 4.3 |
| Vegetables | 3.6 |
| Fruit | 3.5 |
| Potatoes and potato products | 1.9 |
| Dairy | 1.9 |
The annex also reports waste as a share of the amount purchased for individual products. In 2025, 13% of purchased bread was wasted. The corresponding shares were 10% for potatoes and potato products, 10% for bread spreads excluding cheese and meat products, 7% for vegetables, 7% for fruit, and 2% for dough products. These percentages use a different basis from the kilograms-per-person figures: they compare waste with purchases for each product group. The report notes that product-level purchase shares are not corrected for unavoidable losses. Dutch 2025 report, section 3.1 Dutch 2025 report annex, Table 10
| Purchased product | Share wasted in 2025 |
|---|---|
| Bread | 13% |
| Potatoes and potato products | 10% |
| Bread spreads, excluding cheese and meat products | 10% |
| Vegetables | 7% |
| Fruit | 7% |
| Dough products | 2% |
The two views answer different questions: the first shows the annual mass per person for leading food groups, while the second shows what fraction of purchases within selected product groups was wasted. They should not be treated as interchangeable totals. The broader Dutch headline measure is for edible or avoidable solid food; drinks are excluded, and the total purchase share is corrected for unavoidable losses. Dutch 2025 report Dutch 2025 report annex
food waste in home kitchens statistics: Why households discard food
A German diary study recorded reasons for household disposal during July 2016–June 2017. Product durability was associated with 57.6% of edible food waste. Within this broad durability-related category, an expired best-before date accounted for 5.8% of edible food waste. The figures describe diary-reported waste and reasons; the best-before-date figure is not the full durability share. German representative diary study, section 3.1
Quantity issues were also reported. A quantity-related problem at home, such as cooking or preparing too much, accounted for 21.3% of all food waste. A quantity-related problem at purchase, such as oversized packaging, accounted for 11.9%. Separately, 1.7% of households indicated buying oversized packaging because it was cheaper or on offer. These measures refer to different scopes: the first two are shares of diary-reported food waste, while the last is a share of households reporting a particular circumstance. German representative diary study, section 3.1
| Diary finding | Reported share | What the share describes |
|---|---|---|
| Product durability | 57.6% | Edible food waste |
| Expired best-before date | 5.8% | Edible food waste |
| Quantity problem at home, such as preparing too much | 21.3% | All food waste |
| Quantity problem at purchase, such as oversized packaging | 11.9% | All food waste |
| Oversized packaging bought because it was cheaper or on offer | 1.7% | Households |
The study also describes differences by household structure in purchase-quantity disposal cases. Households without children named quantity-related problems at purchase in around 13% of cases. Households with children listed that as the main reason in 8% to 9% of cases. Those reported figures concern disposal cases, not the proportion of households that experienced any food waste. German representative diary study, section 3.1
food waste in home kitchens statistics: Household food waste in Malaysia
Malaysia’s NHIS 2025 household survey asked about food disposal and reported reasons. A total of 94.1% of households reported disposing of processed or cooked food, compared with 88.7% reporting disposal of raw food. These are household response shares; they do not represent the weights of the two types of food discarded. The survey results were released on July 2, 2026. DOSM, Special Release: Household Food Waste in Malaysia 2025, p. 1
Among reported reasons, expired food led at 19.3%. Keeping leftovers in a refrigerator or freezer too long was reported by 18.1%, overbuying by 15.2%, and cooking excessive amounts by 15.1%. Each percentage describes the reported reason as presented in the survey, rather than a measured mass of waste. DOSM, Special Release: Household Food Waste in Malaysia 2025, p. 2
The survey’s breakdown by food category gives another view. Within reported raw-food waste categories, vegetables were the most frequently wasted at 29.1%; fruit represented 22.4%, and fish or seafood 15.0%. For processed or cooked food categories, rice recorded the highest proportion at 16.7%, followed by vegetables at 15.8% and takeaway food at 13.8%. These are category shares as reported by DOSM, not estimates of kilograms per household. DOSM, Special Release: Household Food Waste in Malaysia 2025, p. 2
| Survey measure | Reported result |
|---|---|
| Households disposing of processed or cooked food | 94.1% |
| Households disposing of raw food | 88.7% |
| Leading reported reason: expired food | 19.3% |
| Raw-food category: vegetables | 29.1% |
| Processed or cooked category: rice | 16.7% |
The survey separates whether households reported disposal, why they said food was wasted, and which food categories they identified. Keeping these denominators distinct matters: the 94.1% and 88.7% figures concern households reporting disposal, while the category percentages describe reported food types. DOSM, Special Release: Household Food Waste in Malaysia 2025, pp. 1–2
food waste in home kitchens: Environmental impacts and disposal routes
For the Netherlands, the 2025 report estimates lifecycle impacts associated with household waste of solid food. Per person per year, these were 58 kg of CO2-equivalent greenhouse-gas emissions, 51 m² of land use, and 1 m³ of blue-water consumption. The estimates cover impacts associated with the process preceding the average household’s solid-food waste; they are not measurements of emissions or resource use inside the kitchen. Dutch 2025 report, section 3.4
At national scale, the same report estimates annual burdens associated with Dutch household solid-food waste at 1 billion kg of CO2-equivalent, 925 million m² of land use, and 19 billion liters of water use. These are lifecycle estimates, presented alongside the per-person figures; they refer to the Netherlands and should not be generalized to other countries or populations. Dutch 2025 report, section 3.4
| Dutch lifecycle estimate associated with household solid-food waste | Per person per year | National annual estimate |
|---|---|---|
| Greenhouse-gas impact | 58 kg CO2-equivalent | 1 billion kg CO2-equivalent |
| Land use | 51 m² | 925 million m² |
| Water use | 1 m³ of blue water | 19 billion liters |
The German diary study tracked where edible food waste went. Organic-waste bins received 34%, residual-waste bins 33%, and the sewer 14%. Home composting accounted for 9%, and animal feed for 6%. The figures describe shares of edible food waste in that study, not all discarded material or a general estimate for German households today. German representative diary study, section 3
That same study classified 44% of recorded household food waste as edible and 56% as inedible. The disposal-route shares apply to the edible portion. The distinction illustrates why a waste total can depend on whether a study counts only avoidable food, includes inedible parts, or tracks different disposal destinations. German representative diary study, section 3
food waste in home kitchens statistics: Diary studies and measurement
The German research analyzed diary records from 6,853 households that participated in 2016 and 2017. Its response rate among selected households was 85%. Each participating household recorded all food and drink waste accruing in the household over a 14-day period. The results therefore describe a defined diary window, and the study’s overall estimates rely on household reporting. German representative diary study, abstract and section 2.1
Five percent of households reported no food waste during their 14-day period. Another 12% reported only inedible food waste, 8% reported only edible food waste, and 75% reported both edible and inedible waste. The study excluded 346 households reporting no food waste from the quantity analysis, leaving 6,507 households. These classifications show that reporting any waste and reporting its amount are separate parts of the analysis. German representative diary study, section 3
Among those 6,507 households reporting some waste, the mean recorded amount was 3.4 kg per household per 14-day period, and the median was 2.7 kg. The study’s annualized estimate was 89.5 kg per household and 44.6 kg per person. The 14-day mean and median are diary-period statistics; the annual values are extrapolations from the study, not direct year-long household measurements. German representative diary study, section 3
Diary methods can make household-level events visible, including whether food was edible, why it was discarded, and how it was disposed of. They also depend on participants recording what happened during a particular period. The Finnish research specifically addresses challenges in food-waste diary studies and tests strategies using Finnish data, while the supplied figures here do not include a comparable Finnish quantity estimate. Cross-country comparisons therefore need care: the Dutch report, Malaysian survey, and German and Finnish diary research use different populations, definitions, and methods. Finnish study on food-waste diary methods German representative diary study DOSM NHIS 2025 Dutch 2025 report
Sources
- Voedselverspilling bij consumenten thuis in Nederland in 2025
- Voedselverspilling bij consumenten thuis in Nederland in 2025: Annex
- Special Release: Household Food Waste in Malaysia 2025 — Media Statement
- Characteristics and Determinants of Domestic Food Waste: A Representative Diary Study across Germany
- Tackling the challenges of food waste diary studies — Testing strategies with Finnish data