Abattoirs are like micro markets all of their own, driven by finding commercial solutions for every part of the animals that pass through them.
The challenge of waste usually starts later, when meat stops being a raw material and becomes a product.
As soon as you add something, whether that’s seasoning, curing, slicing or packaging, things change. You introduce allergens, the labelling has to be right. Shelf life can get shorter. What was once flexible becomes much harder to move on quickly and safely.
That’s when surplus starts to build. Not because the product isn’t good, but because it’s no longer straightforward to get onto a plate.
Redistribution is often seen as the obvious answer. In principle, it is. But in practice, particularly with added-value meat, it isn’t always the most viable route. When time is tight, formats don’t work, or compliance creates friction, product tends to move into secondary markets or other outlets that are easier to manage.
That’s not about intent. It’s about how the system works.
If redistribution is slower, more complex or more expensive than the alternatives, it won’t happen consistently. For protein, where food safety, temperature control and traceability really matter, those barriers are higher than most categories.
Part of that comes down to how the system is set up. Some routes, like energy recovery, have been supported in ways that make them easy to default to. Against that backdrop, redistribution has to work harder for its supper.
What we’ve learned working with suppliers across the category, is that small operational changes can make a big difference.
Real-life examples of meat producers cutting food waste
Cranswick Bury
At Cranswick’s Bury site, the shift wasn’t about creating more surplus. It was about changing how that surplus was prepared.
Previously, product was often available in bulk formats, which typically meant larger volumes of sliced charcuterie or short-dated lines that weren’t in a format suited to direct use in households.
A new process has meant moving to smaller 1kg packs, labelled at source, so that same product becomes usable straight away. It can be collected and redistributed without extra handling, without relabelling, and without delay. That matters when you’re working with short shelf life and chilled supply chains.
Over the next 12 months, that one process change is projected to deliver an additional 38,000 meals into communities.
Of course, changes like these aren’t always free. Adjusting pack sizes, adding labelling, or making space on a line all come with a cost. The real question is how that cost is shared, and whether the outcome makes it worthwhile.
Porky Whites
Our work with Porky Whites, a third-generation family business, looks different but makes the same point. Here, the surplus isn’t regular. When it does happen, it tends to be chilled stock that misses its retail distribution cut-off because of a logistics delay, a late truck, a missed slot. Once that window’s gone, the product can’t go to supermarket shelves.
We work directly with the distributor to collect and redistribute it within a day or two, which saves Porky Whites both truck costs and disposal costs. In that case, redistribution isn’t more expensive than the alternative. It’s cheaper.
Making redistribution work
Two different scales, two different triggers, but the same principle. Redistribution works when it’s built into how surplus is handled, not bolted on afterwards.
In our experience, redistribution only works at scale when it works commercially for everyone involved. That might mean charities contributing to packaging or logistics. It might mean partners aligning on process. It might also mean recognising the wider value, from waste reduction to ESG commitments, alongside the immediate cost. If redistribution costs more than disposal, the system defaults the wrong way.
None of these are big changes, but they remove the barriers that usually stop redistribution from happening at scale.
If we want to see more surplus meat reaching people, we need to think about it earlier in the process, not at the point where it becomes a problem. Waste channels are planned and controlled and yet the same doesn’t always apply for redistribution.
That means thinking about format at packing, not afterwards. Making sure labelling is already in place. Working with partners who can move quickly and operate within chilled supply chains. And recognising that redistribution isn’t an add-on. It’s part of how the system can work better.
None of this requires a complete change in how businesses operate. But it does require intent to be matched with practical planning and decisions.
Because this isn’t just about waste.
It’s about whether good food reaches people who need it, in a way that’s safe, usable and timely. When that works, surplus stops being a cost to manage and becomes something more useful. It helps make everyday life a bit more affordable for the communities we serve.
And for an industry that produces high-quality food at scale, that’s worth getting right.
About the author
Justin Pritchard is the head of food for the Manchester-based food redistribution charity, The Bread and Butter Thing.
