I know I’d look better off not saying this, but it’s like when, a while back, I was trying to help my eldest daughter understand the difference between the expressions ‘necessary condition’ and ‘sufficient condition’. Firstly, I found myself being the one she was trying to explain it to. Secondly, finally happy to have grasped the concept (which, incidentally, must be tucked away in some corner of my brain along with, unfortunately, so many other notions I’ve learnt and set aside), when faced with the question “is having two legs a necessary or sufficient condition for being a cat?”, my certainties waver once more. It’s a bit like when I find myself wanting to describe and distinguish a by-product from a co-product or an upcycled product.
The term ‘co-product’ is not defined by specific regulations and could be confused with a by-product. A common feature is that both are substances or products derived from a production process without being the intended end product. A co-product can be fully recovered as it has its own commercial value, thus being characterised as a secondary product of the production process.
The distinction here from by-products is very subtle. It could be argued that a by-product requires some minimal processing for reuse, which may even be partial, whereas a co-product, if fit for human consumption in accordance with applicable hygiene regulations and standards, is a product—simply not the primary product of the process, such as wheat bran or wheat germ.
Finally, the term ‘upcycling’ has become very fashionable in recent years, but it is nothing more than a new term to give a fresh shine to practices that are not really all that new. The Italian translation is difficult and decidedly less appealing than the English term, as a circumlocution must be used to describe the process of converting waste material into new products of higher value. It is, in fact, one of the possible fates of a by-product. In the food sector, upcycled ingredients and products elevate foods or residues that would otherwise be discarded to more noble uses, with clear benefits for the environment and society.
The United States is a pioneer in the certification of upcycled products, with the Upcycled Certified® programme established in 2019 by the UFA (Upcycled Food Association). The programme certifies upcycled ingredients containing at least 95% upcycled content, and upcycled finished products containing at least 10% upcycled content, sourced through verifiable supply chains. Looking at the latest and third edition of the certification standard (June 2025), among the technical requirements for certification, the health and safety of the product or ingredient is, of course, the top priority. It is essential to demonstrate that upcycling reduces the amount of food loss or food waste, thus offering an alternative to landfill, sewerage systems, soil disposal, incineration, composting/anaerobic digestion, animal feed or biochemical processes for the production of durable goods. The UFA website states that ‘food upcycling’ is an ancient tradition based on the philosophy of using everything one has, and in particular of making the most of food for human consumption.
Was certification really needed to encourage something that should be the norm?
