CHOICES
A publication of AAEA
Reducing food loss and waste is a critical sustainability challenge (United Nations, 2025). In the United States, over 30% of food remains unsold or uneaten, resulting in major economic, environmental, and social costs. In 2023, the United States generated approximately 73.9 million tons of food waste—31% of total production (ReFED, 2023). Losses occurred across the supply chain: 26.7% at farms, 17.2% at the manufacturing level, 16.1% at foodservice, 6.6% at retail, and 33.4% at the household level.
To address this, the USDA released its 2024 National Strategy for Reducing Food Loss and Waste, focused on four priorities: expanding organics recycling, improving data systems, supporting policy, and engaging stakeholders through outreach and education. A central component is the promotion of upcycled foods—products made from ingredients that would otherwise have gone to a food waste destination (USDA, 2024; UFA, 2025). Unlike landfill disposal or animal feed, upcycling transforms these materials into new, value-added foods (Lu et al., 2024), aligning with circular economy goals and regenerative business models (Brandão, Gonçalves, and Santos, 2021).
The upcycled food sector is growing more innovative and viable; this article explores its evolution, key technologies, market dynamics, regulatory developments, and consumer perceptions. Using a nationally representative US survey, we present new insights into consumer preferences and policy support for upcycled foods—including attitudes toward labeling, certification, and incentives. These findings inform how market development, policy design, and public engagement can shape a more sustainable food future.
The market for upcycled foods is experiencing significant growth, reflecting increasing consumer and industry recognition of sustainability and resource efficiency. Valued at $53.7 billion in 2021, the sector hovered between $53.7 and $54.5 billion through 2024 and is projected to reach $75 billion by 2029 and $97 billion by 2031, with annual growth rates between 5.6% and 6.2% (Global Market Insights, 2023; Allied Market Research, 2024). North America, particularly the United States, is at the forefront of this growth, accounting for over $20.6 billion of the global upcycled ingredients market in 2022. In Europe, Germany, France, and the UK represent key regional players (Fact.MR, 2022).
Figure 1 depicts the upcycled food supply chain. The supply chain begins with the sourcing of surplus food materials, either waste or by-products, from farms, food processors, or retailers. These materials then undergo preprocessing activities such as cleaning, sorting, or drying to prepare them for transformation. In the transformation stage, technologies like milling, fermentation, extrusion, and cold pressing are used to convert these inputs into consumer-ready food products. These products are then distributed through diverse market channels, including retail, direct-to-consumer platforms, and institutional procurement.
This structure not only reintegrates surplus food into the human food system but also creates economic, nutritional, and environmental value at each stage. To understand the actors operating across this supply chain and the supply chain structure, we compiled a dataset of 84 companies actively producing upcycled food products. These firms were identified through market reports, the Upcycled Food Association’s (UFA) member directory (https://member.upcycledfood.org/website-member-directory), and company websites. Most identified companies (N = 54) are based in the United States, while others are in Canada (N = 4), Europe (N = 15), and Asia (N = 5). Most companies focus on human food applications, transforming agricultural by-products and food processing residues—such as brewer’s spent grain, okara (soy pulp), fruit and vegetable peels, whey, and cosmetically imperfect produce—into value-added foods.
Several companies are distinguishing themselves through their innovative contributions to upcycled food production. Upcycled Foods Inc. (https://upcycledfoods.com/about/), for example, was among the first to attain certification from the UFA. The company transforms brewers’ spent grain—the most abundant by-product of the brewing industry, with an estimated 39 million tons generated globally each year (Nyhan et al., 2023)—into SuperGrain+ flour using infrared heating and stirring. This flour is subsequently integrated into various consumer products, including snack bars, breads, and other baked goods (see Figure 2). Misfits Market (https://www.misfitsmarket.com/) offers an alternative approach by rescuing cosmetically imperfect produce and redistributing it directly to consumers through an efficient e-commerce platform. Similarly, Planetarians (https://www.planetarians.com/) leverages innovative high-moisture extrusion techniques to convert surplus soy and yeast into appealing plant-based meat alternatives, broadening the upcycled food category and consumer appeal.
Emerging technologies suggest promising future developments for upcycled food production. For instance, gene editing is being explored to remove toxic compounds from potato proteins in the potato peel, allowing them to be used in plant-based meat analogs (Bartek et al., 2022; Edenbrandt, and Lagerkvist, 2024). In addition, advancements in 3D food printing technology are being developed to create visually appealing, customizable upcycled food products, further increasing consumer acceptance and market potential (Leo et al., 2022). While these innovations are in their early stages, the increasing integration of food science, biotechnology, and sustainable design principles within the rapidly growing upcycled food sector.
Currently, there are no federal mandates in the United States requiring labeling of upcycled foods. In the absence of such regulations, the UFA has taken the lead in establishing a voluntary certification program to help businesses make credible and consistent claims (UFA, 2025). On January 13, 2025, the UFA launched the world's first Upcycled Certification Standard, which includes supplier audits, verification of upcycled ingredient content, and monitoring of practices aimed at reducing food waste and greenhouse gas emissions. Among the 84 companies that we identified, 46 are currently Upcycled Certified™.
As the upcycled food market and its regulatory frameworks evolve, understanding consumer perceptions is critical for effective communication and policy design. Research highlights several drivers of acceptance, including sociodemographic factors, psychographic traits, and product characteristics. Older or less-educated consumers are generally less accepting than younger or more educated individuals (Coderoni and Perito, 2021; Aschemann-Witzel et al., 2022). In contrast, those concerned about food waste tend to be more receptive (Aschemann-Witzel et al., 2022).Cultural familiarity also matters. For instance, Italian consumers are more accepting of products made with olive waste—a familiar ingredient—than of less culturally relevant upcycled foods (Perito et al., 2020). Front-of-pack labeling is another key factor: consumers are more willing to buy upcycled products when they carry nutritional claims (e.g., high in protein) or sustainability labels like the Carbon Trust (Grasso and Asioli, 2020).
While these studies highlight important differences in consumer acceptance, they offer limited insight into how institutional or political beliefs shape support forupcycled food policy. The next section addresses thisgap by analyzing consumer views on regulatory strategies such as mandatory labeling, certification, production incentives, and public education.
We conducted an online survey of 701 US adults in December 2024 via the Qualtrics platform. Participants were required to be at least 18 years old and provide informed consent. Table 1 reports the demographics characteristics of the sample.
To assess willingness to consume upcycled foods, respondents were asked about their willingness to consume such foods for themselves or their family, using a 5-point Likert scale (from 1 = “not at all willing” to 5 = “very willing”). Results, summarized in Figure 3, indicated neutral levels of willingness, with mean scores of approximately 2.75 for both personal and family consumption. This finding aligns with previous studies suggesting cautious or ambivalent acceptance of novel or unfamiliar upcycled products (Coderoni and Perito, 2021; Aschemann-Witzel et al., 2022).
Further analysis examined willingness to consume various types of upcycled foods, on the same 5-point Likert scale. Respondents showed higher willingness to try snacks, sauces, and bakery products and the lowest willingness for plant-based meat alternatives (Figure 3). These findings are consistent with prior literature suggesting higher consumer receptivity when upcycled ingredients are presented in familiar food formats (Perito et al., 2020).
To explore perceptions regarding taste and safety further, respondents evaluated Upcycled Savory Strips by Planetarians, a meat alternative made with brewer’s spent grain and soy flakes, based on its product description (https://www.planetarians.com/). Participants rated how appetizing they perceived the product to be and their perceived likelihood of future illness from consuming it on scales ranging from 1 to 100 (Lusk, Schroeder, and Tonsor, 2014). Results showed an average appetizing rating of 24.80 (SD = 29.10) for taste perceptions. The average likelihood of causing illness rating was 22.80 (SD = 28.37) for safety perceptions. These findings suggest that addressing sensory and safety concerns could be important for increasing consumer acceptance, particularly for innovative food categories such as plant-based meat alternatives.
To investigate public attitudes toward regulatory strategies, respondents indicated their support for requiring a clear label explicitly stating, “This product is upcycled” and for a government-backed certification mark. Subsequentially, they expressed their opinions on broader market interventions, including financial incentives for producers and public awareness campaigns to encourage consumption. Finally, participants selected the organization they believed should oversee mandatory labeling policies.
The results reveal strong support for clear and transparent labeling. As shown in Figure 4, 87% of respondents agreed that upcycled food products should carry a clear label. Only 6% opposed this requirement, while 7% stated they would refrain from voting. Support was similarly high for a government policy requiring a formal certification mark to identify upcycled foods, with 86% of respondents in favor. However, when it came to broader market interventions, responses were more mixed. A larger share of respondents opposed financial incentives to upcycled companies compared to those who support them, whereas a greater share supportedinformation campaigns designed to promote consumption than opposed them (Figure 4). These patterns align with behavioral research showing that people prefer policies they perceive as fair, credible, and minimally intrusive (Grelle and Hofmann, 2023).Certification and labeling are seen as trustworthy and low-burden, while incentives and campaigns may seem more demanding or costly.
When asked about who should be responsible for implementing and overseeing mandatory labeling, 50% of respondents identified the USDA as the preferred authority, 23% favored industry trade associations, and the remainder selected other governmental or regulatory bodies (Figure 5).
To further examine the drivers of policy support, we used three of the four policy belief questions from Figure 4 as dependent variables in separate logistic regressions (Figure 6):
Responses to the first two questions were binary (yes/no). For the certification mark, opponents and undecided respondents were grouped as the reference category.
Each model included demographic controls (Table 1), perceptions of taste and safety, beliefs about labeling authorities, and consumer innovativeness levels. We excluded the “Clear Labeling on Upcycled” variable from the regression due to its similarly high support and conceptual overlap with the certification mark, which offers a more formal, policy-relevant form of labeling.
Figure 6 presents the average marginal effects for all predictors. Reference categories are Gen Z (born 1997–2012), vegetarian, male, less than high school education, and income below $50,000. Innovativeness reflects the mean score (2.78, SD = 0.85) from the scale by Goldsmith and Hofacker (1991). Beliefs about upcycled foods—such as taste and illness risk—are measured on a 1–100 scale. For institutional trust, the reference category is the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA); IO = International Organization, GA = Government Agency, ITA = Industry Trade Association. The following discussion focuses on statistically significant predictors.
Support for financial incentives to promote upcycled foods varies by age, diet, and beliefs. Older adults—particularly Boomers (born 1946–1964) and Traditionalists or Silent Generation (born 1928–1945) —are less likely to back these policies than younger Gen Z respondents. Support is also lower among women and those following a traditional omnivorous diet, reflecting how policy attitudes are shaped by personal values and sociodemographic characteristics (Grelle and Hofmann, 2023). Beliefs matter too: Individuals who find upcycled foods appetizing are more likely to support incentives, highlighting the importance of sensory appeal. Respondents who trust the USDA or industry associations are more supportive than those favoring the FDA. This suggests that institutional trust also helps shape public acceptance (Grelle and Hofmann, 2023).Finally, consumers more open to innovation are also more likely to support incentives, pointing to a link between novelty-seeking and policy acceptance.
Trends are similar for public information campaigns promoting upcycled food. Older generations remain less supportive, while those with graduate degrees are more likely to back such efforts—suggesting that education fosters openness to outreach-based policies. Taste perceptions again influence support: Those who perceive upcycled foods to be appetizing are more in favor of campaigns. Institutional trust is also key: Respondents who trust the USDA, government agencies, or international organizations show highersupport. However, unlike for financial incentives, consumer innovativeness does not significantly influence support for campaigns.
Support for a certification mark reveals a different age pattern—older adults are more supportive than younger ones. This may reflect a preference for clear, trusted regulatory signals when evaluating novel products. Certification marks can act as strong quality indicators, especially when uncertainty is high (Mogyoros, 2023). Taste perceptions remain central: Those who find upcycled foods appetizing are more likely to support certification. Education and income play limited roles, while trust in the USDA or industry associations increases support. Interestingly, consumer innovativeness does not affect support—suggesting that certification marks may appeal broadly, even among more cautious consumers.
This paper offers timely insights into the evolving US market, regulatory context, and consumer perceptions of upcycled foods, underscoring their potential to address sustainability challenges. The sector’s rapid growth and innovative supply chains show how upcycled foods can reduce waste while generating economic, environmental, and social value. Companies like Upcycled Foods Inc., Misfits Market, and Planetarians are driving the innovation by transforming surplus materials into appealing products using technologies such as infrared heating and high-moisture extrusion and introducing novel business models.
Despite these advances, consumer acceptance remains mixed. Our findings reveal cautious openness shaped by familiarity, sensory expectations, and perceived safety. Consumers favor familiar formats (e.g., snacks, baked goods), while novel items like plant-based meats face more skepticism. Targeted communication and educational efforts are essential to address these barriers. Regression analysis points to key predictors of policy support. Regulatory measures like certification marks garner the most support—especially among older adults—while younger and more innovation-oriented consumers favor incentives and educational campaigns. Across all policy types, positive taste perceptions consistently predict support, confirming the central role of sensory appeal in shaping attitudes. These patterns suggest that different strategies are needed to engage different segments of the public, balancing institutional trust with innovation and outreach.
Expanding the upcycled food sector will require collaboration among policymakers, industry, and advocates. Future efforts should prioritize addressing sensory concerns, leveraging trusted institutions, and deploying targeted education and incentive strategies. Continued research can help guide policy and industry toward a more sustainable food system.
Allied Market Research. 2024. Upcycled Food Products Market by Type and Sales Channel: Global Opportunity Analysis and Industry Forecast, 2022–2031. Report A53592. Available online: https://www.alliedmarketresearch.com/upcycled-food-products-market-A53592
Aschemann-Witzel, J., D. Asioli, M. Banovic, M.A. Perito, and A.O. Peschel. 2022. “Communicating Upcycled Foods: Frugality Framing Supports Acceptance of Sustainable Product Innovations.” Food Quality and Preference 100:104596. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2022.104596
Bartek, L., N. Sundin, I. Strid, M. Andersson, P.-A. Hansson, and M. Eriksson. 2022. “Environmental Benefits of Circular Food Systems: The Case of Upcycled Protein Recovered Using Genome Edited Potato.” Journal of Cleaner Production 380(1):134887. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.134887
Brandão, A.S., A. Gonçalves, and J.M.R.C.A. Santos. 2021. “Circular Bioeconomy Strategies: From Scientific Research to Commercially Viable Products.” Journal of Cleaner Production 295:126407. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.126407
Coderoni, S., and M.A. Perito. 2021. “Approaches for Reducing Waste in the Agricultural Sector: An Analysis of Millennials’ Willingness to Buy Food with Upcycled Ingredients.” Waste Management 126:283–290. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2021.03.018
Edenbrandt, A.K., and C.J. Lagerkvist. 2024. “Can Gene-Editing Accelerate the Protein Shift? Consumer Acceptance of an Upcycled Meat-Substitute.” Food Policy 126:102665. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2024.102665
Fact.MR. 2022. “Upcycled Ingredients Market Size, Share & Trends 2032.” Available online: https://www.factmr.com/report/upcycled-ingredients-market
Global Market Insights. 2023. “Upcycled Food Products Market Size, Industry Analysis Report, Regional Outlook, Application Development Potential, Price Trends, Competitive Market Share & Forecast, 2023–2032.” Available online: https://www.gminsights.com/industry-analysis/upcycled-food-products-market
Goldsmith, R.E., and C.F. Hofacker. 1991. “Measuring Consumer Innovativeness.” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 19:209–221. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02726497
Grasso, S., and D. Asioli. 2020. “Consumer Preferences for Upcycled Ingredients: A Case Study with Biscuits.” Food Quality and Preference 84:103951. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2020.103951
Grelle, S., and W. Hofmann. 2023. “When and Why Do People Accept Public-Policy Interventions? An Integrative Public-Policy-Acceptance Framework.” Perspectives on Psychological Science 19(1):258–279. https://doi.org/10.1177/17456916231180580
Leo, C.H., C.P. Lee, S.Y. Foo, J.C.W. Tan, J.D. Tan, E.S. Ong, and M. Hashimoto. 2022. “3D Printed Nutritious Snacks from Orange Peel Waste.” Materials Today: Proceedings 70:12–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2022.08.484
Lusk, J.L., T.C. Schroeder, and G.T. Tonsor. 2014. “Distinguishing Beliefs from Preferences in Food Choice.” European Review of Agricultural Economics 41(4):627–655. https://doi.org/10.1093/erae/jbt035
Lu, P., J.A. Parrella, Z. Xu, and A. Kogut. 2024. “A Scoping Review of the Literature Examining Consumer Acceptance of Upcycled Foods.” Food Quality and Preference 114:105098. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2023.105098
Misfits Market. n.d. “Save on Grocery Delivery and Reduce Food Waste.” Available online: https://www.misfitsmarket.com/ [Accessed March 25, 2025]
Mogyoros, A. 2023. “Improving Eco-Labels: Are Green Certification Marks up to the Task?” Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice 18(5):367–374. https://doi.org/10.1093/jiplp/jpad029
Nyhan, L., A.W. Sahin, H.H. Schmitz, J.B. Siegel, and E.K. Arendt. 2023. “Brewers’ Spent Grain: An Unprecedented Opportunity to Develop Sustainable Plant-Based Nutrition Ingredients Addressing Global Malnutrition Challenges.” Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 71(28):10543–10564. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jafc.3c02489
Perito, M.A., A. Di Fonzo, M. Sansone, and C. Russo. 2020. “Consumer Acceptance of Food Obtained from Olive by-Products.” British Food Journal 122(1):212–226. https://doi.org/10.1108/BFJ-03-2019-0197
Planetarians. n.d. “Planetarians: Sustainable, Clean Label Ingredients.” Available online: https://www.planetarians.com/ [Accessed March 25, 2025]
ReFED. 2023. “Tons of Surplus Food by Sector (2023).” Food Waste Monitor. Available online: https://insights-engine.refed.org/food-waste-monitor?break_by=sector&indicator=tons-surplus&view=detail&year=2023 [Accessed April 25, 2025]
United Nations (UN). 2025. “International Day of Zero Waste.” Available online: https://www.un.org/en/observances/end-food-waste-day [Accessed March 25, 2025]
Upcycled Food Association (UFA). 2025. “The Upcycled Certification Standard Has Arrived.” Available online: https://www.upcycledfood.org/blog/the-upcycled-certification-standard-has-arrived [Accessed March 25, 2025]
———. n.d. Website Member Directory. Available online: https://member.upcycledfood.org/website-member-directory [Accessed March 25, 2025]
Upcycled Food Inc. n.d. “Upcycled Food Ingredient Supply.” Available online: https://upcycledfoods.com/ingredients/ [Accessed March 25, 2025]
US Department of Agriculture. 2024. National Strategy for Reducing Food Loss and Waste and Recycling Organics. Available online: https://www.usda.gov/sites/default/files/documents/NATIONAL-STRATEGY-FOR-REDUCING-FOOD-LOSS-AND-WASTE-AND-RECYCLING-ORGANICS.pdf
