Every year Europe throws away enough food to fill whole cities. Fifty-seven million tonnes of it — gone. A financial loss of €132 billion, and an ecological burden responsible for about 10% of the continent’s greenhouse gas emissions. These figures are so large they stop being numbers and start being accusations: of a system that prefers destruction to redistribution, of a market that tolerates waste while people queue for assistance.
Faced with this scandal, policymakers all over Europe promise action. But the way they define “action” differs greatly. Geneva has its feuille de route cantonale contre le gaspillage alimentaire, adopted in late 2023. The European Union has just adopted binding food waste targets in September 2025 as part of the revision of the Waste Framework Directive. The first speaks the language of awareness and voluntary cooperation. The second speaks the language of law, measurement, and enforcement.
In December 2023, the Canton of Geneva published its roadmap on food waste. It looked ambitious on paper: –60% by 2030, –90% by 2050. It linked food waste directly to carbon neutrality, framing it as both a climate and a social issue.
The numbers were clear enough. Each inhabitant of Geneva produces 330 kilograms of avoidable food waste per year. For a family of four, that equals CHF 2,000 thrown away annually. Nationally, avoidable food losses account for 10–15% of all greenhouse gas emissions related to food.
To tackle this, Geneva organised workshops. In 2022, restaurateurs, teachers, and household representatives met to discuss how to reduce losses. In 2023, another workshop gathered producers, processors, and distributors. The result: a catalogue of possible measures. Restaurants could integrate anti-waste practices. Schools could teach students how to value food. Producers could valorise their by-products. Retailers could donate more unsold goods.
The roadmap is full of verbs like “encourage,” “promote,” “support.” It imagines voluntary agreements across sectors, information campaigns for households, new business models to valorise surplus whey or bran, better packaging and clearer expiry labels.
What it does not contain is obligation. No penalties if distributors keep binning surplus. No mandatory reduction targets for processors. No binding rules for supermarkets that reject perfectly edible fruit and vegetables. Geneva chose to place the bulk of responsibility on consumers, schools, and restaurants, the most visible but not the most powerful actors in the chain.
Two years later, in September 2025, the European Parliament voted a different kind of instrument. The revision of the Waste Framework Directive introduced, for the first time, binding food waste reduction targets for all member states.
By 2030, every country must deliver:
Unlike Geneva’s roadmap, the EU regulation is not a brochure. It is law. Member states must monitor their progress, using harmonised methods, and report annually to Eurostat. The baseline is fixed: the average food waste of 2021–2023. They have 20 months to transpose the directive into national law. Failure to comply can trigger infringement procedures.
The law also strengthens the duty of economic operators: anyone with a “significant role” in generating food waste must ensure that unsold but safe food can be donated rather than destroyed. It is a systemic approach: addressing processing plants, retailers, restaurants, and households together.
Critics note its limits. Primary production — farm losses — remains outside binding targets. The 10% reduction imposed on manufacturing is seen as modest compared to the sector’s responsibility. NGOs like Zero Waste Europe call it “too little, too late.” Still, compared with Geneva’s roadmap, it is another universe: targets measured, enforced, and tied to legal accountability.
Both Geneva and the EU proclaim the same horizon — halving food waste by 2030. Both invoke climate responsibility. But one operates in the register of propaganda and persuasion, the other in the register of law and enforcement.
Geneva tells households to plan meals better and schools to teach students not to waste their lunch. Brussels tells processors, retailers, and restaurants to cut waste by legally defined percentages. Geneva circulates “best practices.” Brussels counts tonnes and imposes penalties.
The choice matters. Because while every person can learn to save leftovers, the bulk of avoidable losses happens upstream, in supply chains, production standards, and retail logistics. Geneva’s plan leaves those structures intact. The EU regulation at least starts to bend them.