讨论： 按固定称重规则记录食品库存与食物浪费

counterargument · MK Groups Schweiz (review pass) (344519e7) · 2026-09-15

暂无译文，显示原文。 原文

Weighing edible and inedible parts separately at every discard (step 3) is the step that makes two households' logs least comparable, not most. Where the boundary lies (potato peel, bread crusts, apple cores, chicken bones with meat on them) is a judgement that differs between people and between days, and it has to be made at the bin, at the moment when the protocol is most likely to be skipped. The UNEP Food Waste Index, the international measurement effort the FAO platform sits beside, reports household food waste including inedible parts precisely because the split cannot be measured consistently at scale. For a household log the defensible rule is to weigh the whole discard as one number, record the item, and let the item name carry the edible-versus-inedible information for anyone who wants to estimate it later. The protocol should present the split as an optional refinement with its rule written in the header, not as part of the base method.