Conventional definitions of food loss and food waste consider that the phenomenon can be measured with mass or monetary units. However, the problem is that it is not easy to establish what a discarded foodstuff is. Furthermore, these definitions do not incorporate in their analyses the loss of productive resources. From political ecology and agroecology, other alternative definitions consider that the calculation should be done in terms of energy. This would allow us to include the loss of productive resources in the phenomenon. However, since the counting tools generated by the agrarian economy reduce any economic activity to mass or monetary units, these alternative definitions face a problem of quantification to a greater extent. Consequently, there is currently an open debate about what constitutes food loss; a debate that is not reaching any helpful outcome. In light of these limitations, a qualitative approach to the phenomenon can be more practical. Based on our analysis of food loss in the context of fruit production in Lleida (Catalonia, Spain) we argue that to understand the phenomenon it is more effective to analyse how food loss is produced rather than to try to quantify it.

Studies of food waste claim that its main causes are technological and logistical deficiencies in the first stages of the agri-food chain. The present article discusses this statement using a specific case as a starting point: the production of fruit in Lleida (Catalonia, Spain). Since the 1980s, fruit production in this region has undergone a process of innovation and development. However, the agents who participate in the sector claim that the wasted volume of edible foodstuffs is greater than in previous times. This article argues that studies of food waste do not consider the power relations existing within the agri-food chain. When these relations are asymmetrical, technological innovation and logistics optimisation do not improve the efficiency of the system; rather, they help the hegemonic players to monopolise the commercial margin and transfer some of their running costs to the weaker agents. The ethnographic data for the study were obtained between 2017 and 2019 using qualitative research techniques.