According to the reports yesterday, the Government is considering changes to food labelling to cut down on the amount needlessly thrown out.

The plans would see 'best before' dates replaced, on account that food passing this deadline can in some cases still be perfectly safe to eat.

This much the papers' coverage agrees on. But on the cost of the waste thrown out due to this labelling, there are a variety of claims.

The Mail on Sunday: "Best before' dates on food could be scrapped in a move to reduce Britain's £6bn waste mountain.”

The Daily Express: "More than £13.7billion worth of food and drink is thrown away each year, according to research, with each household paying an average of £680 for uneaten items over the past year."

In the space of a day the 'waste mountain' has more than doubled in height?

Not only this, but working on the rough figure of 26 million households in the UK, the £680 each household is apparently binning should aggregate to a positively Himalayan £17.8 billion.

So what could be behind these seemingly divergent figures? Full Fact set out for the dizzying heights.

Analysis

We contacted the Waste Resources Action Programme (WRAP) who have undertaken extensive research on the issue. Their 2009 report Household Food and Drink Waste in the UK includes estimates of the costs of what we throw out each year.

These estimates are produced through analysis of the records of waste thrown out in addition to 'kitchen diary research' . These are then converted to estimated retail costs of the product.

Assessing the cost of 'avoidable' waste, that was edible “at some point prior to disposal” the report suggests that food and drink with a value of approximately £12 billion is disposed of each year.

Clearly this is nearer to the figure given in the Express. Since this is on based on 2007/8 retail prices if inflation is taken into account the number would only move closer to that paper's number.

But does this mean that by using a figure half of this total the Mail was therefore a molehill out of a mountain? Not necessarily

The WRAP report goes on to break the £12 billion figure down by reason this 'avoidable' waste was thrown out.

The report states that of the £10.6 billion in food that was classed as avoidable waste £6,3 billion was lost because it was not used in time, while £3.5 billion comprised of leftovers. In addition £350 million in drinks were not used in time, while £1.3 billion was lost after the drink had been served.



Adding the food and drink waste attributed to sell by date this would see nearly £6.7 billion of 'avoidable' waste attributed to a strict interpretation of sell by dates – not too far removed from the figure in the Mail article. Again this is at 2007/8 prices so the figure in today's prices would be higher.

So this leaves the question of the cost per household and some seemingly wayward maths.

The WRAP report again has the answers, offering figures broken down by household type.

What the Express report had done is mix up the figures for households with children and households more generally – hardly a terrible error given the almost interchangeable use of these two words in much reporting.

But as the WRAP research explained, for households containing children is the average cost f this avoidable waste is £680, but the the average household more generally the cost was £480.

Coming back to the roughly 26 million households in the UK this £480 million add up to over £12 billion costs of 'avoidable' waste.

Conclusion

Despite the seeming contradiction both have some grounding in the research into the issue.

By using the higher figure, the Express have not claimed that all of this is attributable to contentious reading of sell by dates – simply the total of which this kind of waste makes a significant proportion.

In terms of the smaller £6 billion waste mountain (or hill) used in the Mail, the fact that this is close to the amount that is actually attributed to 'sell by date' issue the Government is seeking to address there is justification for this figure too.

So while they may be mountains of differing size, the view from either summit is valid.