APRIL 2022
Opportunities to
Reduce Food Waste
in the 2023 Farm Bill
Prevention
Recovery
Recycling Coordination
AUTHORS
The authors of this report are Emily M. Broad Leib, Joseph S. Beckmann, Ariel Ardura, Sophie DeBode, Tori Oto, Jack Becker, Nicholas
Hanel, and Ata Nalbantoglu of the Harvard Law School Food Law and Policy Clinic (FLPC), along with Yvette Cabrera, Andrea Collins,
Darby Hoover, Madeline Keating, and Nina Sevilla of NRDC (Natural Resources Defense Council), Samantha Goerger and Dana
Gunders of ReFED, and Stephanie Cappa, Alex Nichols-Vinueza, and Pete Pearson of World Wildlife Fund (WWF).
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This report would not have been possible without the advice and support of the many individuals and organizations with whom
we discussed the ideas provided herein or who provided input and feedback on our drafts, including Melissa Melshenker Ackerman
(Produce Alliance), Lesly Baesens (Denver Department of Public Health & Environment), Joe Bolick (Iowa Waste Reduction Center),
Linda Breggin (Environmental Law Institute), Bread for the World, Carrie Calvert (Feeding America), Cory Mansell (Center for
EcoTechnology (CET)), Darraugh Collins (Food Rescue U.S. - Detroit), Shirley DelRio, Paul Goeringer (University of Maryland College of
Agriculture & Natural Resources), Nora Goldstein (BioCycle), Eva Goulbourne (Littlefoot Ventures), Andy Harig (FMI–The Food Industry
Association), LaToyia Huggins (Produce Alliance), Bryan Johnson (City of Madison, Wisconsin - Streets Division), Sona Jones (WW
International), Wes King (National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition (NSAC)), David Matthews-Morgan, Andrew Morse (Iowa Waste
Reduction Center), Stacie Reece (City of Madison, Wisconsin), Barbara Sayles (Society of St. Andrew), Niyeti Shah (WW International),
Rachel Shumaker (City of Dickinson, ND), Tom Smiarowski (University of Massachusetts Extension, Center for Agriculture, Food, and
the Environment), Latha Swamy (City of New Haven, CT, Food System Policy Division), Danielle Todd (Make Food Not Waste), Jennifer
Trent (Iowa Waste Reduction Center), Lorren Walker (Elias Walker), Renee Wallace (FoodPLUS Detroit), among others.
Report design by Najeema Holas-Huggins.
About the Harvard Law School Food Law and Policy Clinic
FLPC serves partner organizations and communities in the United States and around the world by providing guidance on cutting-edge
food system issues, while engaging law students in the practice of food law and policy. FLPC is committed to advancing a cross-sector,
multi-disciplinary and inclusive approach to its work, building partnerships with academic institutions, government agencies, non-
profit organizations, private sector actors, and civil society with expertise in public health, the environment, and the economy. FLPC’s
work focuses on increasing access to healthy foods, supporting sustainable and equitable food production, reducing waste of healthy,
wholesome food, and promoting community-led food system change. For more information, visit www.chlpi.org/FLPC.
About NRDC (Natural Resources Defense Council)
NRDC defends the rights of all people to live free from environmental harm in a clean, healthy, and thriving natural world. We combine the
power of more than three million members and online activists with the expertise of some 750 scientists, lawyers, and policy advocates
across the globe to ensure the rights of all people to the air, the water, and the wild. For more information, visit www.nrdc.org.
About ReFED
ReFED is a national nonprofit working to end food loss and waste across the food system by advancing data-driven solutions to the
problem. We leverage data and insights to highlight supply chain ineciencies and economic opportunities; mobilize and connect
supporters to take targeted action; and catalyze capital to spur innovation and scale high-impact initiatives. Our goal is a sustainable,
resilient, and inclusive food system that optimizes environmental resources, minimizes climate impacts, and makes the best use of the
food we grow. To learn more about solutions to reduce food waste, please visit www.refed.org.
About World Wildlife Fund
WWF is one of the world’s leading conservation organizations, working for 60 years in nearly 100 countries to help people and nature
thrive. With the support of 1.3 million members in the United States and more than 5 million members worldwide, WWF is dedicated to
delivering science-based solutions to preserve the diversity and abundance of life on Earth, halt the degradation of the environment,
and combat the climate crisis. Visit www.worldwildlife.org to learn more.
Suggested Citation:
Emily m. Broad lEiB, JosEph s. BEckmann Et al., harv. l. sch. Food l. & pol’y clinic (Flpc), nat. rEs. dEF. council (nrdc), rEFEd, &
World WildliFE Fund (WWF), opportunitiEs to rEducE Food WastE in thE 2023 Farm Bill (2022), https://chlpi.org/wp-content/up-
loads/2022/04/2023-Farm-Bill-Food-Waste.pdf.
Table of Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY............................................................................................................................................................................i
INTRODUCTION.........................................................................................................................................................................................1
FOOD WASTE PREVENTION...............................................................................................................................................................3
Standardize and Clarify Date Labels..........................................................................................................................................3
Launch a National Food Waste Education and Awareness Campaign.........................................................................5
Provide Funding to K-12 Schools to Incorporate Food Waste Prevention Practices in Their
Programs..............................................................................................................................................................................................7
Promote Food Education and Food Waste Education in K-12 Programming.............................................................8
Utilize Existing Federal Household-Level Food Education Programs to Increase
Food Waste Awareness...................................................................................................................................................................9
Provide Grant Funding for New Technologies to Reduce Food Spoilage and Food Waste................................11
Implement a Certification Program for Businesses that Demonstrate Food Waste Reduction.........................12
Provide Financial Incentives to Businesses for the Adoption of Technologies that
Reduce Food Waste by at Least 10%.......................................................................................................................................13
SURPLUS FOOD RECOVERY..............................................................................................................................................................14
Strengthen and Clarify the Bill Emerson Good Samaritan Food Donation Act.......................................................14
Increase Funding Support for Food Recovery Infrastructure and for Post-Harvest
Food Recovery..................................................................................................................................................................................16
Oer Grant Resources and Procurement Programs to Increase Food Recovery from Farms...........................18
Encourage USDA Grant and Loan Recipients to Donate Surplus Food by
Incentivizing Food Donation......................................................................................................................................................20
Expand Federal Tax Incentives for Food Donation..............................................................................................................21
Instruct the USDA Risk Management Agency and Approved Crop Insurance
Providers to Better Support Gleaning.....................................................................................................................................22
FOOD WASTE RECYCLING................................................................................................................................................................24
Provide Grants to Support Proven State and Local Policies that Reduce Food Waste
Disposed in Landfills or Incinerators.......................................................................................................................................24
Provide Grants and Loans for the Development of Organic Waste Processing Infrastructure.........................26
Require Federal Food Procurement Contractors to Measure, Recover, Recycle, and
Prevent Food Waste in Federal Contracts............................................................................................................................29
Support Compost End Markets Through Crop Insurance Benefits and Increased
Federal Procurement of Compost Products.........................................................................................................................29
Encourage Diversion of Food Waste into Animal Feed Where Appropriate............................................................31
FOOD WASTE REDUCTION COORDINATION.............................................................................................................................33
Increase Funding for the USDA Food Loss and Waste Reduction Liaison and
Create a Broader Research Mandate........................................................................................................................................33
Provide Funding for the Federal Interagency Food Loss and Waste Collaboration.............................................34
Establish New Positions for Regional Supply Chain Coordinators at the USDA...................................................35
Appendix A: U.S. Food Loss & Waste Policy Action Plan Recommendations and
Additional Report Recommendations............................................................................................................................................37
Appendix B: Table of Recommendations and Implementation Opportunities by Title...............................................38
Appendix C: Table of Pending Federal Legislation....................................................................................................................40
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The United States produces and imports an abundance of food each year, but approximately 35% of it goes
unsold or uneaten.
1
Annually, 80 million tons of surplus food are not consumed. Of this, 54.2 million tons go to
landfill or incineration, or are left on the fields to rot.
2
Farmers, manufacturers, households, and other businesses
in the United States spend $408 billion each year to grow, process, transport, and dispose of food that is never
eaten.
3
This waste carries with it enormous economic, environmental, and social costs, but also represents great
opportunity. ReFED, a national nonprofit working with food businesses, funders, policymakers, and more, to
reduce food waste, analyzed 40+ food waste solutions, and found that the implementation of these solutions has
the potential to generate $73 billion in annual net financial benefit, recover the equivalent of 4 billion meals for
food insecure individuals, save 4 trillion gallons of water, and avoid 75 million tons of greenhouse gas emissions
annually.
4
The federal government has an important role to play in the continued eort to reduce food waste. In 2015, the
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
jointly announced the nation’s first-ever food waste reduction goal, aiming to cut food waste in the United States
by 50% by the year 2030.
5
While the food waste reduction goal is a step in the right direction, in order to make
this goal a reality, it is imperative for the federal government to make food waste reduction a legislative priority.
Congress has started to take these necessary steps. In 2018, for the first time ever, Congress included measures
in the Farm Bill to reduce food waste, for example, by clarifying liability protections for food donors, financing
food recovery from farms, encouraging food waste recycling through community compost funding, and better
coordinating food waste reduction eorts across the federal government.
6
Many of these programs were
suggested in the Opportunities to Reduce Food Waste in the 2018 Farm Bill report, on which this report is based.
7
While the inclusion of these programs was an important first step, there is significant room for improvement in the
2023 Farm Bill. The farm bill authorizes roughly $500 billion over five years in expenditures across the entire food
system, and the upcoming farm bill is poised to use a portion of this funding to build upon the successful pilot
programs launched in 2018 and ensure more comprehensive investment in food waste reduction.
Opportunities to Reduce Food Waste in the 2023 Farm Bill details how Congress can take action to reduce food
waste and oers specific recommendations of provisions to include in the 2023 Farm Bill. Given the bipartisan
support for measures to reduce food waste,
8
the next farm bill provides an exciting opportunity to invest in food
waste reduction eorts for greater social, economic, and environmental benefits. This report breaks food waste
recommendations into four categories, based on whether they are intended to prevent food waste, increase food
recovery, recycle food scraps through composting or anaerobic digestion, or coordinate food waste reduction
eorts.
Below are a summary of the four categories and the top recommendations for each that are described in greater
detail later in this report as well as mentions of relevant pending federal legislation (that are also included in
further detail in Appendix C):
FOOD WASTE PREVENTION
Prevention eorts focus on interventions at the root causes of food waste—they locate
and address ineciencies in the food system and food related practices before excess
food is produced, transported to places where it cannot be utilized, or discarded rather
than eaten. More than 85% of greenhouse gas emissions from landfilled food waste
result from activities prior to disposal, including the production, transport, processing,
and distribution of food.
9
The greenhouse gas emissions embodied in the food wasted
by consumers and consumer-facing businesses account for more than 260 million
metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO
2
e) per year,
10
which is equivalent to the
annual emissions of 66 coal-fired power plants.
11
Food waste prevention eorts keep
millions of tons of food out of the landfill and have the most potential for environmental,
Opportunities to Reduce Food Waste in the2023 Farm Bill
i
economic, and social benefits. Altogether, the food waste prevention policies discussed in this section have the
potential to annually divert nearly 7 million tons from landfills, while generating more than $27.4 billion each year
in net financial benefit.
12
Standardize and Clarify Date Labels
There is no federal regulation for date labels used on food. Instead, each state decides whether and how to
regulate date labels, leading to a patchwork of inconsistent regulations and myriad date labeling terms such as
“sell by,” “best by,” “expires on,” and “use by.” Manufacturers have broad discretion over what dates to ax to
their food products, often using dates that typically reflect food quality and taste rather than food safety. Yet
businesses, individuals, and even state regulators frequently misunderstand date labels and interpret them to be
indicators of safety, leading to the unnecessary waste of wholesome food. Some states even restrict or forbid
the sale or donation of past-date foods that are still safe to donate and eat. These inconsistent and misguided
state laws lead to wholesome foods unnecessarily being discarded rather than donated. In order to reduce
consumer confusion and the resulting food waste, the 2023 Farm Bill should standardize date labels through the
Miscellaneous Title or a new Food Waste Reduction Title.
Launch a National Food Waste Education and Awareness Campaign
American consumers alone are responsible for 37.2% of all U.S. food waste.
13
Research shows that while consumers
understand the importance of food waste reduction in the United States, they do not recognize their own role
in these eorts. So far there have been successful small-scale campaigns to educate consumers, but to really
move the needle, a coordinated, well-funded national campaign is needed. The 2023 Farm Bill can address and
correct wasteful practices by providing $7 million annually through 2030 for a national food waste education and
awareness campaign—with $3 million for research into eective consumer food waste reduction strategies and
$4 million for consumer-facing behavior change campaigns—within the Miscellaneous or a Food Waste Reduction
Title.
Relevant Pending Legislation
Food Date Labeling Act of 2021 (H.R. 6167, S.3324 117th Cong. 1st Sess., 2021); School Food Recovery Act of 2021 (H.R.
5459, 117th Cong. 1st Sess., 2021)
SURPLUS FOOD RECOVERY
Food recovery solutions aim to recover surplus food and redistribute it to individuals
experiencing food insecurity. Recovering surplus food within the supply chain and reducing
barriers to food donation could result in the recovery of roughly 2.3 million additional tons
of food each year and a net financial benefit of $8.8 billion.
14
Nearly half of this new food
recovery potential comes from farms, more than a third from restaurants, and the rest from
grocers and retailers.
15
Strengthen and Clarify the Bill Emerson Good Samaritan Food Donation Act
Many businesses are reluctant to donate food because of perceived liability concerns associated with donation,
such as a food recipient getting sick.
16
To eliminate these barriers to surplus food donation, the 2023 Farm Bill
should strengthen and clarify the Bill Emerson Good Samaritan Food Donation Act, which protects food donors
from liability.
17
It should do so by delegating authority over the Act to the USDA and mandating that the USDA
publish regulations interpreting the Act. The 2023 Farm Bill should also modify the Act to protect donors who
donate directly to individuals and organizations that charge a small fee for donated food.
Increase Funding Support for Food Recovery Infrastructure and for Post-
Harvest Food Recovery
The USDA should expand investments in food recovery infrastructure and innovative food recovery models
to overcome barriers to increased food recovery and donation. To support the development of food recovery
operations, Congress should increase funding for food infrastructure eorts, either through new 2023 Farm
Bill investments or by making several funding initiatives from the COVID-19 response permanent. Additionally,
ii
Opportunities to Reduce Food Waste in the2023 Farm Bill
it should continue supporting innovative food recovery models by increasing funding for the Community Food
Projects Competitive Grants Program within the Nutrition Title and earmarking a portion of the grants for
food recovery projects. Congress should also increase funding for the Local Agriculture Market Program in the
Horticulture Title, increase its applicability to food waste reduction beyond just “on-farm food waste,” and earmark
a portion of its funding for food waste prevention and recycling and food recovery.
Relevant Pending Legislation
Further Incentivizing Nutritious Donations of Food (or FIND) Act of 2022 (H.R. 7313, 117th Cong. 2nd Sess., 2022); Food
Donation Improvement Act of 2021 (H.R. 6521, S.3281, 117th Cong. 1st Sess., 2021); Fresh Produce Procurement Reform
Act of 2021 (H.R. 5309, 117th Cong. 1st Sess., 2021).
FOOD WASTE RECYCLING
Food waste is the largest component of landfills nationwide—contributing over 36 million
tons to landfills each year
18
and accounting for 24.1% of landfilled municipal solid waste.
19
Food
waste alone produces 4% of all U.S. greenhouse gas emissions per year.
20
Further, instead of
being wasted, these organic inputs could contribute to better soil matter and reduce soil loss,
contributing to a more circular economy. Despite improvements in food waste prevention and
recovery initiatives, some food is inevitably discarded. Recycling remaining food waste has
the annual potential to divert 20.9 million tons of food scraps from landfills and produce a net
financial benefit of $239.7 million.
21
The 2023 Farm Bill should support methods of food waste
management that are sustainable, economically beneficial, and limit the use of landfill space
and reliance on incinerators.
Provide Grants to Support Proven State and Local Policies that Reduce
Food Waste Disposed in Landfills or Incinerators
Landfills continue to be overburdened by food waste.
22
States and cities are running out of space to store organic
waste as they continue to rely on landfills to manage this waste.
23
Further, as food items decompose in landfills,
they release harmful greenhouse gases at alarming rates, which can cause potential harm to human health,
agriculture, and other natural ecosystems and resources.
24
State and local policies such as organic waste bans, waste diversion requirements, landfill taxes, and Pay-As-You-
Throw policies have been shown to move the needle on reducing food waste and are essential to divert food
waste from landfills and incinerators. When food waste generators that produce a certain threshold of food waste
(e.g., grocery stores and hospitals) are prevented from transporting organic waste to landfills or have a strong
financial reason not to waste food, they will make changes such as oering smaller portions, donating surplus
food, recycling food scraps, and repurposing their leftovers. The 2023 Farm Bill should provide $650 million in
yearly funding for ten years for state, local, and tribal governments, independently or as part of a public-private
partnership to plan or implement proven policies that reduce food waste in landfills and incinerators.
25
As part
of this program, Congress should require the USDA (in collaboration with EPA) to maintain a database of the
state and local food waste reduction policies that have proven success, and data on their impacts. Congress can
establish this program in the 2023 Farm Bill within the Miscellaneous Title or a dedicated Food Waste Reduction
Title.
Provide Grants and Loans for the Development of Organic Waste
Processing Infrastructure
In addition to implementing waste bans, waste diversion requirements, zero waste goals, and waste prevention
plans, state and local communities must also develop their organic waste processing capabilities to manage the
organic waste diverted from landfills and to realize the benefits of these strategies. Both compost and anaerobic
digestion infrastructure have the potential to convert food waste into productive soil amendments.
These organic waste processing capabilities are also costly. In the 2018 Farm Bill, Congress authorized the creation
of the Community Compost and Food Waste Reduction Project (CCFWR) to provide pilot funding for local
governments in at least ten states to study and pilot local compost and food waste reduction plans.
26
CCFWR
Opportunities to Reduce Food Waste in the2023 Farm Bill
iii
funding enables localities to enhance their waste prevention capacities and has already fostered a positive impact
within communities.
27
Congress should build on the existing CCFWR program and adopt new strategies to develop
composting and anaerobic digestion infrastructure. In order to scale the program’s benefits, Congress should
increase the total and per project funding available for the CCFWR program in the next farm bill. In addition,
as CCFWR projects are generally small community projects, Congress should provide larger funding for the
development of new compost and anaerobic digestion facilities, by providing $200 million per year for ten years
in new composting infrastructure.
Relevant Pending Legislation
Cultivating Organic Matter through the Promotion Of Sustainable Techniques (or COMPOST) Act of 2021 (H.R. 4443,
S.2388, 117th Cong. 1st Sess. 2021); Zero Food Waste Act of 2021 (H.R. 4444, S.2389, 117th Cong. 1st Sess. 2021).
FOOD WASTE REDUCTION COORDINATION
Data and research on food waste are critical to providing insight on areas that future
policymaking should prioritize. A lack of comprehensive research and federal agency
coordination in this space prevents eective management of national resources to
address food waste. In the 2018 Farm Bill, Congress established a USDA Food Loss and
Waste Reduction Liaison, a welcome step towards reducing food waste and increasing
food recovery at the federal level. The 2023 Farm Bill should build upon this by further
developing and funding food waste reduction coordination.
Increase Funding for the Food Loss and Waste Reduction Liaison and
Create a Broader Research Mandate
The Food Loss and Waste Reduction Liaison (the Liaison) fills an important role for federal food waste reduction.
The Liaison coordinates food waste reduction eorts across agencies, researches and publishes research on
sources of food waste, supports organizations engaged in food loss prevention and recovery, and recommends
innovative ways to promote food recovery and reduce food waste.
28
However, the Liaison only receives enough
funding to sta the individual Liaison position with no funding for additional support sta, which inhibits the
Liaison’s ability to fulfill their statutory mandate.
29
Congress should increase the funding and develop the Liaison
position into a Food Loss and Waste Oce, so that there are more sta and capacity to carry out the duties set
out in the farm bill. Congress should also identify modernizing and expanding national food waste data and farm
food waste loss measurement as explicit goals for the Liaison, using the additional funding provided.
Provide Funding for the Federal Interagency Food Loss and Waste
Collaboration
In 2018, the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the USDA, and the EPA launched an interagency
task force known as the Federal Interagency Food Loss and Waste Collaboration (the Collaboration) that
is committed to working towards the national goal of reducing food loss and waste by 50% by 2030.
30
The
Collaboration plays a vital role in the federal government’s involvement in food loss and waste reduction eorts.
Congress should authorize $2 million in annual funding for the Collaboration in the 2023 Farm Bill to better
position it to meet the United States’ 2030 food waste reduction goal.
31
Congress should require a broader
set of federal agencies to engage in the Collaboration such as the Department of Defense, the Department of
Transportation, the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Education, and the General Services
Administration, among others. Congress should also require the Collaboration to deliver regular reports to
Congress on its progress towards achieving the national food waste reduction goal. These provisions can be
included in the Miscellaneous Title or in a new Food Waste Reduction Title.
Relevant Pending Legislation
National Food Waste Reduction Act of 2021 (H.R. 3652, 117th Cong. 1st Sess. 2021).
vi
Opportunities to Reduce Food Waste in the2023 Farm Bill
The amount of food wasted in the United States
poses an enormous problem. Even though an
abundance of food is produced and imported in the
United States each year, about 35% of it goes unsold
or uneaten.
32
This means that annually, 80 million
tons of surplus food are not consumed. Of this, 54.2
million tons go to landfill or incineration, or are left
on the fields to rot.
33
Food loss and waste carries
enormous economic, social, and environmental
costs. Farmers, manufacturers, households, and
other businesses in the United States spend $408
billion each year to grow, process, transport, and
dispose of food that is never eaten.
34
Producing
food that ends up uneaten consumes 21% of
all freshwater, 19% of all fertilizer, and 19% of all
cropland used for agriculture in the United States.
35
Food waste generates about 270 million metric tons
of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO
2
e) greenhouse
gas emissions each year, the same as 58 million
passenger vehicles.
36
Despite the surplus of food produced, 10.5% of
American households faced food insecurity in 2019
and 2020, both before and after the COVID-19
pandemic began.
37
While the food insecurity rate
did not rise in 2020 because of the massive federal
investment in financial and direct assistance, the
pandemic exposed the need for food system
reform to ensure that our food supply can adapt
and continue to serve the needs of Americans
even when faced with unprecedented disruptions.
The amount of food that goes to waste each year
makes little sense when paired with the data on
the number of food insecure households. In fact,
according to the United States Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), significantly more food is
wasted than would be required to feed every food-
insecure individual in the United States.
38
Reducing food waste is an important area for
resource conservation and climate change
mitigation that remains underdeveloped in federal
policy. However, in recent years, the federal
government has initiated eorts that acknowledge
its important role in the eort to reduce food waste.
In 2015, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)
and the EPA jointly announced the nation’s first-ever
food waste reduction goal, aiming to halve U.S. food
waste by 2030.
39
In 2018, the USDA, the EPA, and
the United States Food and Drug Administration
(FDA) signed an Memorandum of Understanding
to work together towards this goal.
40
In 2019, these
three agencies launched the Federal Interagency
Food Loss and Waste Collaboration (formerly
the Winning on Reducing Food Waste Federal
Interagency Collaboration) which set priority actions
to reduce food loss and waste, including enhancing
interagency coordination, increasing consumer
education and outreach eorts, and improving
coordination and guidance on food loss and waste
measurement.
41
State and local actors also are recognizing and
acting on the need for reform. At the local level,
many cities, including New York, Austin, San
Francisco, and Washington, D.C., promote food
waste reduction through creative initiatives to
reduce and better manage food waste.
42
For
example, San Francisco introduced the first ever
mandatory composting requirements for businesses
and residents in 2009.
43
Since then, at least seven
large cities or counties followed San Francisco’s
lead and implemented organic waste bans or
mandatory organic waste recycling laws.
44
States
have also implemented a variety of policies to
reduce food waste. These include tax incentives for
food donation,
45
organic waste bans,
46
and liability
protections for food donors and food recovery
organizations that exceed the federal floor.
47
Reducing food waste has unique bipartisan appeal
because it can simultaneously increase profits
and eciencies across the food system, increase
access to wholesome food, and protect the planet
from the harmful environmental consequences
associated with wasted food. According to an
analysis by ReFED, a national nonprofit working
with food businesses, funders, policy makers, and
more, to reduce food waste, implementing 40
priority food waste solutions has the potential to
generate $73 billion in annual net financial benefit,
recover the equivalent of 4 billion meals for food-
insecure individuals every year, and create 51,000
jobs over ten years.
48
Adding to these economic
and social benefits, food waste solutions also have
the potential to save 4 trillion gallons of water and
avoid 75 million tons of greenhouse gas emissions
annually, among other environmental benefits.
49
In order to meet our national food waste reduction
goal, the federal government must make food
waste reduction a priority in all of its policy areas.
INTRODUCTION
Opportunities to Reduce Food Waste in the2023 Farm Bill
1
Of particular relevance is the farm bill. Passed
every five years, the farm bill is the largest piece
of food and agriculture-related legislation in the
United States and provides a predictable and visible
opportunity to address food waste on a national
scale. With food waste becoming a major focus
in both states and the federal government, this
legislation oers an opportunity to address multiple
sectors of the food and agricultural system and
eect system-wide change to reduce food waste.
In 2018, Congress, for the first time ever, included
measures related to food waste in the farm bill.
50
These provisions are enumerated in the first Text
Box above and are described in more detail as
relevant throughout this report. Many of these
provisions were suggested in the Opportunities to
Reduce Food Waste in the 2018 Farm Bill report, on
which the current report is based.
These provisions oer an important starting point
for investing the resources needed to meet our
national food waste reduction goals. This report
oers opportunities for Congress to build upon its
noteworthy achievements in the 2018 Farm Bill by
expanding the pilot programs and grants initiated
in the 2018 Farm Bill and developing noteworthy
and necessary new programs. Building from the
preliminary funding in the 2018 Farm Bill, the 2023
Farm Bill is poised to help the federal government
take more eective and wide-ranging action to
reduce food waste. Food waste reduction programs
could be included in a dedicated Food Waste
Reduction Title or by modifying existing titles and
programs to incorporate food waste reduction
as a priority. Several provisions presented in this
report could alternatively be implemented through
standalone federal legislation.
The recommendations presented in this report are
organized to reflect the priorities outlined in the
EPA Food Recovery Hierarchy (pictured above).
51
As in the Food Recovery Hierarchy, this report
highlights food waste prevention as the most
important goal and begin by making proposals to
prevent waste. Waste prevention eorts aim for
intervention at the root causes of food waste—
they locate and address ineciencies in the food
system and food related practices before excess
food is produced, transported to places where it
cannot be utilized, or discarded rather than eaten.
Waste prevention eorts keep millions of tons of
food out of the landfill, and altogether, the waste
prevention policies discussed have the potential
for the most considerable environmental benefit.
Next, the report outlines opportunities to facilitate
redirection of wholesome
surplus food to food-
insecure individuals by connecting farmers, retailers,
or food service establishments with food banks,
food rescue organizations, community organizations
that provide food, emergency feeding operations,
and other intermediaries (collectively referred
to as “food recovery organizations”). Then, the
report outlines recommendations for supporting
recycling food scraps through composting or
anaerobic digestion, rather than disposing of waste
in landfills or incinerators. The report concludes
with recommendations to coordinate and streamline
food waste reduction eorts and elevate food waste
reduction to be a federal priority. Taken together,
the recommendations presented in this report can
2
Opportunities to Reduce Food Waste in the2023 Farm Bill
In the 2018 Farm Bill, Congress responded for the
first time ever to the pressing need for action on food
waste reduction, with an unprecedented inclusion of
various food waste related programs and funding.
Food Waste Provisions Included in the 2018 Farm Bill:
· Pilot Project to Support State and Local
Composting and Food Waste Reduction Plans
· Grant Resources for Food Recovery Infrastructure
Investments
· Food Loss and Food Waste Liaison and Study on
Food Waste
· Food Donation Standards for Liability Protections
· Milk Donation Program
· Local Agriculture Marketing Program
· Spoilage Prevention
· Carbon Utilization and Biogas Education Program
Opportunities to Reduce Food Waste in the2023 Farm Bill
3
strengthen the economy, preserve the environment,
help withstand disasters—like pandemics—and
improve the lives of millions of Americans, all
by reducing the unnecessary waste of healthy,
wholesome food that can be eaten, and by recycling
remaining food scraps.
Annual potential to divert 582,000 tons
of food waste, reduce 2.73 million metric
tons of CO
2
e, and save 162 billion gallons of
water, with a net financial benefit of $2.41
billion
54
ISSUE OVERVIEW
A major driver of food waste is confusion over date
labels.
55
Consumers face an array of unstandardized
labels on their food products, and many people
throw away food once the date passes because
they mistakenly think the date is an indicator
of safety. However, for most foods the date is a
manufacturer’s best guess as to how long the
product will be at its peak quality. When consumers
misinterpret indicators of quality and freshness
for indicators of a food’s safety, this increases the
amount of food that is unnecessarily discarded.
There is currently no federal scheme regulating date
labels on food products other than infant formula.
56
Congress has given general authority to the FDA
and the USDA to protect consumers from deceptive
or misleading food labeling.
57
Both the USDA
58
and
the FDA
59
published recommendations regarding
the language to be used for date labels, but neither
agency has used its authority to implement a
comprehensive, mandatory regulatory scheme.
In the absence of federal regulation, states have
enormous discretion to create regulatory schemes
for date labels, resulting in high variability. Most
states regulate some food items, while few states
have created a comprehensive date labeling
scheme, and some do not regulate date labels at
FOOD WASTE PREVENTION
Standardize and Clarify Date
Labels ★
U.S. Food Loss & Waste Policy Action Plan:
On April 6, 2021, the Harvard Law School Food Law & Policy Clinic (FLPC), NRDC (Natural Resources
Defense Council), ReFED, and World Wildlife Fund (WWF)—along with many additional supporters,
including the American Hotel and Lodging Association, Compass Group, Food Recovery Network,
Google, Hellmann’s Best Foods, Hilton, Hyatt, Marriott International, the Kroger Company, Unilever,
several local government agencies, and other businesses and non-profit organizations
52
—published
the U.S. Food Loss & Waste Policy Action Plan for Congress & the Administration (Action Plan).
53
The Action Plan calls upon Congress and the Biden administration to take ambitious action to
achieve the goal of cutting U.S. food loss and waste in half by 2030. It recommends five key policy
recommendations ranging from investing in infrastructure and programs that measure and prevent
food waste to standardizing date labeling at the federal level. The recommendations in this report that
are also included in the Action Plan, and thus endorsed by a broad set of partners, are notated with ★
symbol. They are also listed together in Appendix A.
all.
60
Some states even restrict or forbid the sale
or donation of past-date foods, even though most
date labels are not safety indicators, creating
unnecessary barriers to the donation of safe food.
61
Manufacturers generally are free to select whether
to use a date label, which explanatory phrase they
will use (e.g., “best by,” “use by,” “best before,”
or “sell by”), and how the timeframe for the date
will be measured. Manufacturers use a variety of
methods to determine the timeframe for label dates,
almost all of which are intended to reflect when the
food will be at its peak quality and are not intended
as safety indicators.
62
Yet businesses, individuals,
and even state regulators frequently misinterpret
the dates to be indicators of safety, leading to the
unnecessary waste of wholesome, past-date food.
63
ReFED estimates this confusion accounts for 20% of
consumer waste of safe, edible food—approximately
$29 billion worth of wasted consumer spending per
year.
64
Federal standardization of date labels has the
potential to dramatically reduce food waste in
the United States. According to ReFED’s Insights
Engine, standardizing date labels is one of the most
cost-eective ways to reduce food waste, with the
potential to divert 582,000 tons of food waste per
year from landfills, and the opportunity to provide
$2.41 billion per year in net economic value.
65
RECOMMENDED DATE LABELING SCHEME
Congress should standardize and clarify date labels
by establishing a dual date labeling scheme that
applies to all food products nationally and limits
date labeling language to two options: either a label
to indicate food quality or a label to indicate food
safety. This would align with the preexisting industry
Voluntary Product Code Dating Initiative established
in 2017 by The Food Industry Association (FMI)
(formerly the Food Marketing Institute) and the
Consumer Brand Association (CBA) (formerly
the Grocery Manufacturers Association), which
recommends manufacturers use the term “BEST
If Used By” where foods are labeled as a quality
indicator, and the term “USE By” on foods labeled
to indicate that they may pose a safety risk if
consumed after this date.
66
Date labels used to
signify food quality, which comprises most date
labels on food products, should be required to use
the language “BEST If Used By.” For foods that
increase in safety risk past the date, manufacturers
should use a safety date, indicated with the
language “USE By.”
This would build on the momentum already
underway. According to CBA, their members self-
reported that 87% of products were using these
streamlined labels as of 2018, less than two-years
after CBA began the initiative.
67
Further, federal
agencies recommend quality labels use the “Best
If Used By” language, as evidenced by the USDA
Food Safety Inspection Service (FSIS) 2016
recommendation that food manufacturers and
retailers use this label to communicate quality
68
and
the FDA’s 2019 open letter supporting voluntary
eorts to use “Best If Used By” to indicate quality.
69
Further, this dual date labeling scheme is ideal for
communicating eectively with consumers. A 2016
national consumer survey conducted by FLPC, the
National Consumers League, and Johns Hopkins
University found that “best if used by” was the
language best understood by consumers to indicate
quality, while “use by” was one of two phrases that
best communicated food safety.
70
Requiring standard date labels would align the
United States with its peer countries. Internationally,
the Codex Alimentarius 2018 update, General
Standard for the Labelling of Prepackaged Foods,
sets out a dual date labeling scheme as the model
practice.
71
The Codex Alimentarius is a set of
international food standards developed by the Food
and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
(FAO) and the World Health Organization (WHO).
Aligned with the Codex standards, the European
Union requires companies to use a safety-based,
“use by” date label for foods that are considered
“highly perishable,” and unsafe to consume after
the date. All other foods use a quality-based, “best
before” date label, after which food may still be
perfectly safe to consume and donate.
72
In addition to standardizing date labels, federal
action is also needed to preempt state restrictions
on the sale or donation of food that is past its
quality date. Currently, 20 states restrict the sale or
donation of past-date foods, even when the dates
on those foods have no bearing on safety, leading to
unnecessary waste.
73
However, since only past-date
foods bearing the “USE by” date label would pose a
safety risk, the sale and donation of foods past the
“BEST if Used By” date should be permitted.
To support the implementation of this change,
Congress should instruct the FDA and the USDA to
collaborate to inform consumers about the update,
explicitly defining what these two labels mean in an
education campaign.
74
Ensuring that consumers are
aware of the new date labels and their meanings
will help prevent unnecessary discarding of safe,
4
Opportunities to Reduce Food Waste in the2023 Farm Bill
wholesome food. This could be included in the
national food waste education campaign discussed
in Section I(B) of this report.
IMPLEMENTATION OPPORTUNITY
The next farm bill should take the easy
and cost-eective step to reduce food
waste by standardizing and clarifying
date labels with a uniform, nationwide
policy that applies to all food
products. This standardization should
take the form of the two labels: “BEST if Used By” to
indicate quality, and “USE By” to indicate safety. The
initiative should also include a consumer education
campaign.
The farm bill has previously addressed food labeling
concerns,
75
and is an appropriate vehicle for
standardizing date labels. This scheme should be
implemented through a new Food Waste Reduction
Title or in the Miscellaneous Title. Language
implementing the above recommendations could
be taken from the bicameral, bipartisan Food Date
Labeling Act of 2021.
76
Launch a National Food Waste
Education and Awareness
Campaign ★
Annual potential to divert 1.38 million tons
of food waste, reduce 7.41 million metric
tons of CO
2
e, and save 281 billion gallons of
water, with a net financial benefit of $6.08
billion
77
ISSUE OVERVIEW
American consumers waste an estimated 30 million
tons of food each year—accounting for about
37.2% of the food that goes to waste.
78
While many
consumers understand the importance of food
waste reduction, they generally do not recognize
their own role in reducing food waste.
79
American
consumers “perceive themselves as wasting little,
with nearly three-quarters reporting that they
discard less food than the average American.”
80
Most consumers report that they discard less than
10% of their food and believe that much of their
food waste is unavoidable.
81
However, the average
household wastes 31.9% of the food it buys.
82
This mismatch regarding consumers’ individual
contribution to food waste and their perception
of the quantity of their own waste demonstrates a
problematic lack of awareness.
NATIONAL FOOD WASTE EDUCATION CAMPAIGN
Congress can promote national food waste
education and awareness through a public
awareness campaign. ReFED estimates that a
national consumer education campaign is one of
the most cost-eective solutions to reduce food
waste, with the potential to divert 1.38 million
tons of food annually and create $6.08 billion net
economic value.
83
Because consumers unknowingly
produce a massive amount of food waste, a national
food waste awareness campaign should be geared
towards increasing consciousness of the issue
and changing consumer behavior. This campaign
should incorporate elements of behavioral science
to illustrate how much food goes to waste in
households across the country, highlight methods
for preserving and storing foods, provide consumers
tips to identify whether food is still safe and edible,
and teach consumers how to compost food scraps.
84
Evidence indicates that a national education
campaign has tremendous potential to impact
consumer behavior. National education campaigns
eectively changed United States consumer
behaviors in other areas and consumer food waste
practices in other countries. Domestically, the
United States Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention’s (CDC) nine-week, national anti-smoking
education campaign, “Tips from Former Smokers,”
motivated almost 2 million Americans to attempt to
quit smoking.
85
In the United Kingdom, the Waste
and Resources Action Programme’s (WRAP) “Love
Food Hate Waste” nationwide campaign reduced
consumer food waste by 21% in five years.
86
The
program cost £26 million (~$34.43 million USD) over
five years to implement but was responsible for £6.5
billion (~$8.6 billion USD) in savings to households
in avoided food costs, as well as £86 million
(~$114 million USD) in savings to U.K. government
authorities in avoided waste disposal costs.
87
Altogether, the initiative reaped a total benefit-
cost ratio of 250:1. Between 2015 and 2018, the
U.K. avoided 1.6 million tons of greenhouse gases
and diverted 480,000 tons of food waste directly
attributable to the nationwide campaign.
88
Opportunities to Reduce Food Waste in the2023 Farm Bill
5
A national food waste education campaign in the
United States could similarly cultivate a cultural
movement against food waste. In 2016, the Ad
Council and NRDC launched “Save the Food,”
a public awareness campaign that encourages
Americans to reduce food waste.
89
“Save the Food”
has been featured on television, radio, billboards,
and waste trucks in several large cities across the
country, including Chicago and New York City.
90
As of 2019, more than $111 million of media space
was donated, and survey results demonstrated that
those aware of “Save the Food” ads were more
likely to say that they had reduced the amount of
food they had thrown away in the prior 6 months,
compared to those not aware of the ads.
91
While the “Save the Food” campaign is a first step,
consumer education on food waste is needed
on a larger national scale. With many American
consumers still unaware of the impacts of food
waste as well as their contribution to the issue,
a nationwide targeted campaign could unify the
messaging regarding consumer food waste and
ensure that it reaches all Americans.
A national food waste education campaign will only
be eective if it is properly targeted at consumers
with well-tested messaging. It is essential that
research be conducted to consider consumer
insights and develop campaign approaches that
resonate with target markets and incorporate
elements of behavioral science to optimize
campaign eectiveness.
92
Research should go
towards investigating which population segments
to target, understanding how to best target them,
and determining which strategies are most eective
in changing consumer habits, rather than just
increasing awareness of the issue.
93
The research
can also help identify the best messengers, which
likely will dier across segments and markets (i.e.,
using celebrities or television shows that resonate
with children to target the youth audience, social
media to target young adults, and more traditional
advertising streams to target adults), even though
the messages themselves will be consistent. Pilot
projects with strong assessment tools, including
waste audits in communities where the campaigns
are piloted, should be used before implementation
of a full campaign to maximize eectiveness.
In the UK, WRAP used a consumer insight-driven
research program to determine that 18- to 35-year-
old people waste more food than any other age
group, making them the ideal target, and the best
way to interact with this group was through digital
media messaging.
94
This type of targeting has
also been used eectively at a smaller scale in the
United States. In the City and County of Denver,
the Department of Public Health and Environment
has been integrating Community Based Social
Marketing (CBSM) strategies targeted specifically
at reducing food waste from leftovers.
95
The United
States should learn from the targeting strategies
used in these campaigns to optimize the consumer
education and awareness campaign.
The Sustainable Management of Food program
at the EPA created an implementation guide and
toolkit for its food waste education program:
Food: Too Good to Waste.
96
The guide is
intended for community organizations and local
governments interested in reducing food waste
from households.
97
The guide oers advice on how
to select a population to target and execute the
education campaign. While the EPA has produced
these helpful resources, they have not launched
a full-scale consumer education campaign that
is necessary to eectively reduce food waste
nationally. The federal government, led by the USDA
working with the EPA, could leverage these existing
assets and research related to consumer outreach
and behavior change when starting a national food
waste education and awareness campaign.
IMPLEMENTATION OPPORTUNITY
The next farm bill should instruct
the USDA in collaboration with EPA
to launch a national food waste
education and awareness campaign.
A widespread consumer education
campaign should be supported
with funds appropriated through a Food Waste
Reduction Title or through the Miscellaneous Title.
Congress should appropriate $7 million annually
through 2030, with $3 million for research into
eective consumer food waste reduction strategies
and $4 million into consumer behavior change
campaigns.
6
Opportunities to Reduce Food Waste in the2023 Farm Bill
Provide Funding to K-12
Schools to Incorporate Food
Waste Prevention Practices in
Their Programs
Annual potential to divert 7,060 tons of
food waste, reduce 33,600 metric tons of
CO
2
e, and save 1.69 billion gallons of water,
with a net financial benefit of $13.2 million
98
ISSUE OVERVIEW
Every year tons of wholesome food are wasted in
schools, costing the federal government as much as
$1.7 billion annually.
99
This waste undermines eorts
to address food insecurity, mitigate environmental
degradation, and achieve food sustainability.
Schools provide close to 100 million meals to
children each day as part of the National School
Lunch Program (NSLP).
100
In the spring of 2019,
WWF, with support from The Kroger Co. Foundation
and the EPA Region 4 (Southeast), analyzed food
waste in 46 schools in nine cities across eight
states.
101
The report found that the schools wasted
39.2 pounds of food per student annually.
102
Based
on these numbers, WWF extrapolates that schools
participating in federal meal programs could waste
360,000 to 530,000 tons of food each year.
103
The environmental impact of food waste in schools
is significant. Given that over 100,000 schools
participate in the NSLP, the food waste translates to
1.9 million metric tons of CO
2
e of greenhouse gases
and over 20.9 billion gallons of embedded water
(the water that went into producing the food that
went to waste).
104
Given the scale of waste resulting
from school meal programs, schools should be a
focal point for food waste education and reduction
eorts.
SUPPORTING FOOD WASTE REDUCTION
STRATEGIES IN SCHOOLS
Food waste in schools occurs for several reasons,
including incorrect portion sizes and situational
issues such as unpleasant eating environments and
insucient time periods for students to consume
their meals.
105
There are several ways to address
these issues; however, schools often struggle with
implementation due to costs, a lack of guidance on
how to adopt the changes, or insucient program
funding from the government.
Congress can support schools in conducting food
waste audits, student surveys, and other methods
to gather data on the types and quantity of food
thrown away in school cafeterias. Food waste
auditing helps administrators understand the scope
of their food waste problem and identify specific
areas for improvement.
106
In a 2019 study analyzing
food waste at 46 schools in eight states, WWF
found that students at each school were producing
approximately 40 pounds of food waste per year,
which is 9% higher than average Americans waste
in homes (normalized by meals).
107
Once informed
by their waste baseline, the schools conducted six
weeks of food waste audits and recorded a total
average waste reduction of 3%, with elementary
schools seeing a greater reduction at 14.5%. Of the
waste types measured including fruit and vegetable,
milk, and other organic wastes, milk waste saw the
greatest decrease with an average of 12.4%.
108
Yet, many schools currently lack the funding to take
on an auditing project. Even a $10-20 million grant
program would help many schools reduce their
food waste and change their cafeteria practices
to ensure more food is eaten and not wasted. The
program can build on the School Food Waste
Reduction Grant Program proposed in the bipartisan
School Food Recovery Act of 2021 (SFRA).
109
The
SFRA seeks to establish a similar competitive grant
program for local educational agencies to achieve
food waste reduction goals. Grant programming
directed at reducing school food waste will not only
provide schools with needed funds to administer
specific programs, including audits, but it will
also encourage schools to devote more time and
attention to food waste, and reward schools for
engaging in these beneficial activities.
Once schools conduct audits and better understand
the quantity of food waste they produce, they
can introduce strategies proven to be eective
in reducing food waste including longer lunch
periods,
110
share tables,
111
and collaborating with
students to improve meals.
112
In addition to support for schools undertaking food
waste audits, any funding or incentive for schools to
conduct food waste audits, measure their waste, and
take actions to reduce it or to redirect or donate
surplus food could help move schools towards
accounting for and changing their practices to be
more sustainable. This is particularly true in schools
utilizing additional grant funding for food service or
educational programs.
Opportunities to Reduce Food Waste in the2023 Farm Bill
7
To ensure that state and local health inspectors are
aware of food waste policies in schools—specifically
food donation and share tables, which may raise
initial food safety concerns—Congress should
mandate that the USDA educate ocials about how
these strategies work and that they are permissible.
MANDATING AN OFFER VERSUS SERVE MODEL
ACROSS THE SCHOOL SYSTEM
When students are forced to take food they do not
plan to eat, food is inevitably wasted. To remedy
this problem, the USDA encourages schools to
adopt the “Oer Versus Serve” (OVS) model
113
which
allows students the opportunity to choose desired
components of their NSLP and School Breakfast
Program (SBP) meals to reduce food waste.
114
For
schools to participate in NSLP and SBP, they must
abide by federal and state rules on nutrition and
food procurement.
115
Meals that are eligible for NSLP
reimbursement must consist of five components:
fruit, vegetable, whole grain, meat/alternative, and
milk.
116
The OVS policy allows students to decline up
to two of these five components if they take either a
fruit or vegetable.
117
By contrast, students in schools
without an OVS policy would be required to accept
all five components, regardless of whether they
intend to eat all the foods they are given.
Confusion surrounding the OVS policy leads
to waste when schools mistakenly believe that
students must elect to take a certain component
of the meal, for example milk, for the meal to
be reimbursable under federal regulations.
118
However, while milk must be oered, students are
not required to take that option.
119
This confusion
contributes to up to 45 million gallons of milk waste
in school cafeterias nationwide.
120
Currently OVS is mandatory for high schools and
optional for elementary and middle schools, which
may explain the higher rates of food waste in the
lower grade levels.
121
Implementing this model across
all schools would reduce the immense amount
of waste produced in schools. The USDA should
provide simple and clear instructions to schools
implementing this program to avoid confusion and
misunderstanding of the current rules that may
lead to food waste. These instructions should be
accompanied by an awareness program to increase
understanding of the policies targeting both
students and school sta (such a program may be
as simple as posters explaining the requirements to
hang in the lunchroom).
IMPLEMENTATION OPPORTUNITY
In the next farm bill, Congress should
lower the financial burden on school
food waste reduction eorts by
providing dedicated grants to conduct
food waste audits and implement
waste reduction programming.
The grants should be available to schools on
a competitive basis and should be part of the
Nutrition Title.
In addition to authorizing a new grant program,
Congress should modify existing school grant
program selection processes to preference
applicants that have food waste reduction
programs. The USDA currently administers several
grant programs for schools, including the NSLP
Equipment Assistance Grants
122
and the Farm to
School Program (F2S).
123
Congress should require
the USDA to give priority to applications from
schools that include a food waste reduction or food
donation plan as part of their application. These
changes should be made through the Nutrition Title.
Lastly, Congress should mandate OVS across all
schools, for both NSLP and SBP, but preserve
some flexibility for schools to decline to use OVS
for the youngest grade levels if doing so is dicult
to implement or if it is deemed inappropriate for
the school population. It should further require the
USDA to publish additional guidance and implement
training for teachers and sta to adequately prepare
for the transition. These changes should be made
through the Nutrition Title.
Promote Food Education and
Food Waste Education in K-12
Programming
Annual potential to divert 14,800 tons of
food waste, reduce 70,200 metric tons
of CO
2
e, and save 3.45 billion gallons of
water, with a net financial benefit of $25.5
million
124
ISSUE OVERVIEW
There is a gap in school programming for food
waste education. While there are programs
8
Opportunities to Reduce Food Waste in the2023 Farm Bill
providing grant funding to schools for food
and agriculture related education, including the
Food and Agriculture Services Learning Program
(FASLP), a program created in the 2014 Farm Bill
that provides funding for agriculture and nutrition
education in K-12 schools,
125
there is no required
focus on food waste. Additionally, the existing grant
programs for food education generally do not have
sucient funding to reach all interested schools and
thus are unable to maximize their positive impact.
Educating students on food waste can immediately
reduce food waste.
126
Educating students will also
realize long-term benefits because knowledge
gained in early education significantly impacts the
practices of individuals as they become participants
in the marketplace.
127
Schools can play an integral
part in educating future generations of consumers
and establishing sustainable food consumption
habits.
Congress should support eorts for schools
to educate students on food waste reduction
strategies. One program for which food waste
reduction education should be required is FASLP,
which should include a focus on food waste
reduction strategies in nutrition education, such as
portion size awareness, how to utilize surplus food,
composting, and correctly storing perishables.
128
Modifying the language around the FASLP in the
next farm bill to include food waste reduction
techniques will motivate schools to expand their
oerings, better account for food waste reduction,
and educate the next generation of consumers on
better food waste reduction practices.
Beyond food waste-specific education, Congress
should increase support generally for education
on food production and food systems to prevent
waste. One way to educate kids on food in schools
is through USDA’s Farm to School Program (F2S).
129
F2S combines food education with improved access
to local food by connecting schools with local
farmers.
130
By helping students develop a greater
appreciation for the origins of their food, this
program helps students, and in turn schools, waste
less.
131
Data from the 2013-2014 school year program
revealed that F2S resulted in a 17% reduction in
plate waste.
132
The USDA currently oers planning,
implementation, and training grants ranging from
$20,000 to $100,000 for F2S programs.
133
For the
2015-2016 school year, $120 million was requested
and approximately $25 million was awarded.
134
This data demonstrates large demand for F2S
programming, indicating that schools are interested
in these initiatives but lack sucient funding
for them. By increasing funding for F2S, which
has already been shown to reduce food waste in
schools, more schools will be able to participate in
the program and thus reduce their food waste.
IMPLEMENTATION OPPORTUNITY
The next farm bill should reauthorize
and modify the FASLP program’s
authorizing language in the Nutrition
Title to direct the USDA to award
extra points on grant applications
to schools that include food waste
reduction education as a focus in their program.
The next farm bill should reauthorize and increase
funding for the F2S program. This program has
been shown to eectively reduce waste in schools.
Increasing funding will allow additional schools to
participate.
135
This program was originally a part of
the Healthy, Hunger Free Kids Act of 2010,
136
but
could be included in the farm bill going forward
under the Nutrition Title.
Utilize Existing Federal
Household-level Food
Education Programs to
Increase Food Waste
Awareness
ISSUE OVERVIEW
On average, American households spend $1,866
per year on food that ends up going to waste.
137
According to the USDA Economic Research
Service (ERS), 10.5% of American households
faced food insecurity in 2020.
138
Many of these
families participate in food assistance programs
(e.g., Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program
(SNAP), Special Supplemental Nutrition Program
for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC)), and have
limited budgets to spend on food. As discussed
above, individuals are often unaware of how much
food they waste and how to reduce their own food
waste at home.
139
There are multiple existing USDA
programs targeting those 13.8 million households
with food and nutrition education, yet currently
none of these programs are required to address
food waste.
With almost one-third of household food being
Opportunities to Reduce Food Waste in the2023 Farm Bill
9
wasted, education regarding strategies to reduce
food waste would inevitably save all consumers
money. Congress should promote national
food waste awareness by taking advantage of
existing food education programming to provide
educational materials to Americans about food
waste prevention. The authorizing language for the
Expanded Food and Nutrition Education Program
(EFNEP) and for SNAP Education (SNAP-Ed) and
SNAP-Ed guidance documents should include
education related to increasing the eciency
of food usage or reducing food waste.
140
These
are existing programs and are therefore easy to
leverage, but additional eorts should be made by
the federal government to educate all consumers on
better food usage and reducing food waste.
EXPANDED FOOD AND NUTRITION EDUCATION
PROGRAM OPPORTUNITIES
EFNEP is a federally funded farm bill
141
grant
program that aims to enable low-income Americans
to “engage in nutritionally sound food purchasing
and preparation practices,” by providing funding
to land grant universities to deliver nutrition and
physical education programs in each state.
142
EFNEP
is funded annually through appropriations.
143
It
typically receives around $69 million per year.
144
While the program already provides educational
materials with strategies for shopping for healthy
food on a budget, the authorizing language should
also mention food waste reduction as a strategy
to support household food budgets. One of the
four stated core areas is increasing the ability of
participants to buy, prepare, and store nutritional
food.
145
This section of the program could mention
food waste reduction. It will be important to
make sure the education is culturally appropriate
and applicable to the situations of the recipients,
especially if many of them are depending on
providers like food banks, where recipients do not
typically get a choice in the foods they receive.
Education about food waste reduction could help to
extend the budgets of Americans, while helping to
address the nation’s food waste problem.
SNAP-ED OPPORTUNITIES
With over 42 million people receiving SNAP benefits
each year, SNAP-Ed represents an enormous
opportunity to educate individuals about food
waste and food waste prevention.
146
SNAP-Ed is
a federally funded grant program that seeks to
improve the likelihood that SNAP recipients will
make healthy food choices within a limited budget
and engage in physically active lifestyles consistent
with the current Dietary Guidelines for Americans
and the USDA food guidance.
147
SNAP-Ed was first
established in 1981 as “Nutrition Education” through
the Food Stamp Program and now receives funding
through annual appropriations bills—typically
receiving just over $400 million split between
the states.
148
Like EFNEP, SNAP-Ed focuses on
“promoting healthy eating and active lifestyles,”
while stipulating that program providers “must
consider the financial constraints of the SNAP-Ed
target population in their eorts.”
149
SNAP-Ed oers an opportunity to educate
Americans on how to best prevent food waste
while in no way diverting resources or attention
away from the primary objectives of the program—
improving nutrition outcomes. Some states,
including Maine and Connecticut, already include
food waste education within their SNAP-Ed
programming.
150
These states provide guidance on
how to reduce food waste and how to understand
date labels.
151
However, many states do not address
food waste in their programming, which represents
a tremendous missed opportunity. Rather than
leaving it to states to decide to include guidance
on reducing food waste, this instruction should
come from Congress through the farm bill. The 2014
Farm Bill amended SNAP-Ed to include education
on physical activity, which suggests that additional
goals can be included in the 2023 Farm Bill.
152
SNAP-Ed funding should be used to increase
awareness of food waste and share techniques to
reduce food waste—such as how to properly store
leftovers, how to use some ingredients that people
receiving food donations may be unfamiliar with,
and how to interpret date labels. Additionally, it
should be used to develop tools (for example, a
meal planning tool) to help participants prevent
food waste. Such a tool could be developed out
of existing information and tips on meal planning
available through multiple states’ SNAP-Ed
programs.
153
Again, any educational tools should also
take into consideration cultural appropriateness,
quality of food provided, and food access problems
that might also lead to food waste.
By adjusting the goals and priorities for SNAP-
Ed and EFNEP, Congress can tackle both food
insecurity and food waste, ensuring that more
Americans are provided with the necessary tools to
get the most out of their food dollars by properly
storing perishable items, reusing, and repurposing
leftovers, and ultimately reducing food waste.
154
10
Opportunities to Reduce Food Waste in the2023 Farm Bill
IMPLEMENTATION OPPORTUNITY
The next farm bill should renew
support for EFNEP in the Research,
Extension, and Related Matters Title
of the 2018 Farm Bill and modify
the authorizing language to include
food waste prevention education.
Including an explicit focus on food waste reduction
as a program goal in the authorizing language
will ensure EFNEP providers include food waste
reduction in their programs.
Similarly, Congress should add language about food
waste education in the program goals of SNAP-Ed in
the Nutrition Title. The 2023 Farm Bill should include
an amendment including food waste education so
SNAP-Ed strategies will assess nutrition, physical
activity, and food waste reduction.
Provide Grant Funding for New
Technologies to Reduce Food
Spoilage and Food Waste
ISSUE OVERVIEW
Advances in food technology could prevent
an enormous amount of food waste, however,
insucient funding has been dedicated to research
and development in this space. New technology
has the potential to reduce food waste on-farm
and post-harvest, during transportation and
processing, and on the shelf. There has been some
development of such technology, however, many of
these products are in the early stages, are too costly
to apply at scale, and lack funding, which has held
up the opportunity for new solutions, especially as
the market for such solutions is uncertain. Federal
investment has the potential to fill in the gaps
that venture capital and other funding streams are
missing, and should prioritize new companies and
those without venture backing.
There is significant room for new technology to
reduce on-farm food loss as well as help connect
surplus food to avenues for its use. According to
ReFED, 21% or 17 million tons of food loss occurs
on farm.
155
Technology to help prevent this loss or
to help redirect edible food may include harvesting
technology such as improved picking machinery
for high loss crops, tracking technology to monitor
produce and optimize harvest schedules, and
blockchain for demand forecasting and decision
making across the supply chain. This technology
could create more economic value for growers while
reducing food loss.
In addition to technology to reduce on-farm food
loss, packaging technologies and food treatments
that slow spoilage and prolong the shelf life of
produce, meat, poultry, fish, and other perishable
products could have a tremendous impact on
reducing food waste. It is important to note that
new packaging prioritized for funding should not
increase the use of fossil-fuel-based materials,
non-recyclable/non-compostable materials, or
single-use plastics. Some examples of innovative
packaging technologies that address this issue
include: It’s Fresh!, which removes ethylene from
produce to extend shelf life;
156
BluWrap, which
works to reduce and monitor oxygen levels in meat,
poultry, and fish packaging;
157
and Apeel, which
applies an amphiphilic coating to lock moisture in
produce while keeping air out.
158
However, these
products remain largely in pilot phases, and food
manufacturers may be unwilling to bear the cost of
utilizing such packaging if the savings only benefit
consumers who will save money by having food
with longer shelf lives, rather than producers, who
will likely face reduced sales if less food spoils, thus
requiring replacement in the form of more sales.
159
According to ReFED, the use of innovative products
to slow spoilage has the annual potential to divert
425,000 tons of food waste from the landfill, while
creating $1.74 billion in net financial benefit.
160
Investment is also needed in innovative upcycled
food products or other byproduct utilization.
Upcycled food is a growing sector of the economy
that looks to find new, environmentally beneficial
uses for previously discarded food products.
161
Upcycling creates new food products out of surplus
food, unmarketable food, and even inedible food
byproducts. New upcycling processes and products
can be supported by funding for research and
development. Funding can also support marketing
to consumers to describe the benefits of foods that
would otherwise have gone to waste. According
to ReFED, upcycling food has the annual potential
to divert 1.87 million tons of food waste from the
landfill, while creating $2.69 billion in net financial
benefit.
162
The USDA should promote research and
development of technology to reduce on-farm food
loss, slow food spoilage, and create upcycled food
products.
163
Opportunities to Reduce Food Waste in the2023 Farm Bill
11
One farm bill grant program, the Specialty Crop
Research Initiative (SCRI), can provide funding
for the research and development of spoilage
prevention technology and technology to reduce
on-farm food loss. SCRI grants address needs
related to “specialty crops”—which includes fruits,
vegetables and tree nuts.
164
These grants are
available to land grant universities (universities
focused on teaching “agriculture and the
mechanic arts”),
165
private universities, non-profit
organizations, for-profit institutions (including
small businesses), and state agricultural experiment
stations.
166
There is an estimated total of $80 million
available for funding each year for SCRI.
167
SCRI
projects must address at least one of five focus
areas, including eorts to improve production
eciency, handling and processing, productivity,
and profitability over the long term.
168
The 2018
Farm Bill stated that SCRI should include “eorts
to achieve a better understanding of systems to
improve and extend the storage life of specialty
crops.”
169
By including this language, the 2018 Farm
Bill took an important first step toward supporting
innovative food spoilage prevention technology.
Even though SCRI can fund research on food
spoilage technology as of 2018, and on technology
to reduce on-farm food loss since the start of the
program, none of the twenty grants given in 2021
addressed either issue.
170
In line with the United
States national food waste reduction goal, and in
order to increase support for innovations to reduce
food loss, Congress should direct the USDA to
further preference such projects during the selection
process.
Beyond SCRI, other support for new packaging
technologies is needed. SCRI does not cover
research on products other than specialty crops, yet
similar research is needed to extend the shelf-life
and reduce waste of dairy, meat, poultry, and fish.
Since animal products are generally more expensive
for consumers and more resource-intensive to
produce,
171
preventing their waste should be a high
priority. Congress should create a program like
SCRI that focuses on providing support for new
technologies to extend the shelf life of dairy, meat,
poultry, and fish.
SCRI also does not explicitly cover the research
and development of upcycled food products,
though it could arguably be included in its funding.
Congress should specify that SCRI could also
support research and development into upcycled
products or should create a separate funding
mechanism focused on research and development
for upcycled food products. This can help drive
more development of products using this beneficial
practice.
IMPLEMENTATION OPPORTUNITY
In the Research, Extension, and
Related Matters Title, Congress should
increase funding for SCRI and should
direct the USDA to further preference
projects that target food waste by
either extending the life of specialty
crops or reducing on farm food loss during the SCRI
selection process. Congress should also specify
that funding from SCRI could be used for research
and development of new upcycled products using
surplus specialty crops.
Additionally, Congress should create a program like
SCRI that supports new technologies to extend the
shelf life of dairy, meat, poultry, and fish, and the
development and manufacturing of upcycled food
products using these food products. This program
could be in the Research, Extension, and Related
Matters Title, or the Miscellaneous Title, or in a new
Food Waste Reduction Title.
Implement a Certification
Program for Businesses that
Demonstrate Food Waste
Reduction
ISSUE OVERVIEW
Certification programs have eectively changed
corporate and consumer behavior in other sectors
and could prove similarly successful in reducing
food waste. For example, in 1992, the EPA launched
the Energy Star Certification program to formally
recognize energy-ecient products.
172
The EPA
worked with technical experts from computer
and appliance companies to establish criteria that
would qualify consumer electronics for Energy Star
Certification.
173
Now, approximately 75,000 product
models have earned the Energy Star Certification,
and consumers purchase over 300 million Energy
Star-Certified items each year.
174
As a result, the
EPA estimates that Energy Star Certification has
achieved 4 billion metric tons of greenhouse gas
12
Opportunities to Reduce Food Waste in the2023 Farm Bill
reductions since the start of the program.
175
The private sector already supports the creation
of a food waste reduction certification system.
In 2012, the U.S. Zero Waste Business Council
(USZWBC) created a zero-waste certification
program for businesses called TRUE.
176
In 2016,
USZWBC merged with Green Business Certification
Inc. (GBCI) to expand the certification program
to drive sustainability across all sectors.
177
TRUE
certification is available to any physical facility and
their operations if they meet the seven minimum
program requirements, which include achieving an
average of 90% or greater overall diversion from
landfills, incineration, and the environment for solid,
non-hazardous wastes.
178
A certification program similar to TRUE that
focuses on food waste would help consumers
identify businesses with good food waste reduction
practices and could inform their purchasing
choices, thereby using consumer preferences in
the marketplace to reduce overall food waste.
This program should include consumer education
that raises awareness about the meaning of the
certification and the importance of reducing food
waste. Congress could task USDA, EPA, or the
two to work together to oversee this program.
This could build on the USDA and EPA’s U.S. Food
Loss and Waste 2030 Champions that identifies
businesses and organizations that have made a
public commitment to reduce food loss and waste
in their own operations in the United States by 50%
by the year 2030,
179
or the EPA’s Food Recovery
Challenge launched in 2011, which had oered
technical assistance and acknowledgement to
over 800 participants.
180
The agency should work
with technical experts to establish criteria that
would qualify certain businesses for the food waste
reduction certification and should create consumer
education materials to maximize the program’s
impacts.
IMPLEMENTATION OPPORTUNITY
The next farm bill should create a food
waste reduction certification program,
under the Miscellaneous Title or a
new Food Waste Reduction Title,
to encourage businesses to prevent
or otherwise reduce food waste as
consumer-facing businesses contribute 28% of the
United States’ total food waste.
181
The certification
program can be administered by the Food Loss
and Waste Reduction Liaison within the USDA, or
by EPA, or by the two agencies jointly, building on
their joint United States Food Loss and Waste 2030
Champions program.
Provide Financial Incentives to
Businesses for the Adoption
of Technologies that Reduce
Food Waste by at Least 10%
ISSUE OVERVIEW
Roughly 42% of food waste results from
ineciencies in the food supply and food
management chain by the manufacturing, retail,
and food services sectors.
182
After food leaves the
farm, businesses at all levels of food production,
distribution, and retail experience ineciencies—
including spoilage, equipment issues, and handling
errors—that result in waste.
183
For example,
businesses at the product distribution level that
transport food, especially food that is temperature
sensitive, may contribute to food waste due to long
transportation times or changes in temperature
that increase the speed of spoilage.
184
At the retail
level, 20% of unsold food is due to handling errors,
14% is due to spoilage, and 12% is due to equipment
issues.
185
Businesses along the supply chain can cut food
waste by enhancing food product distribution
systems. Existing technology can help businesses
reduce these ineciencies and reduce food waste
by improving handling, forecasting, inventory
management, and temperature monitoring. For
example, trucks with advanced cooling technology
can help reduce food waste during transportation.
186
Intelligent routing technology can help businesses
identify when products have a change in shelf life
and route the product to the nearest location.
187
Unfortunately, this technology can be expensive
upfront, which creates an uptake barrier to
businesses obtaining and implementing these kinds
of food waste reduction solutions.
Providing incentives for businesses to adopt these
technologies can not only scale deployment, but it
can also create a more robust market for innovative,
novel technologies. Congress should provide
a financial incentive for businesses to employ
Opportunities to Reduce Food Waste in the2023 Farm Bill
13
technologies that demonstrate an ability to prevent
food waste by at least 10%.
The financial incentive should be structured in
the form of a tax credit, much like the Federal
Solar Investment Tax Credit (the ITC).
188
The ITC
provides a 26% tax credit on installation costs for
business that install, develop, and/or finance solar
energy systems.
189
A similar tax credit model could
be applied to food waste reduction technologies.
Congress should direct agencies to establish a list
of the technologies that have evidence to show that
they reduce food waste by 10% and maintain a list
of the technologies that are eligible for such a tax
credit.
IMPLEMENTATION OPPORTUNITY
Congress should create a federal tax
incentive for the commercial adoption
of post-harvest food waste reduction
technologies under a Trade and Tax
Title or under the Miscellaneous Title
or a new Food Waste Reduction
Title. In order to qualify for this credit, Congress
should direct agencies to maintain a list of eligible
technologies that demonstrate a 10% reduction in
food waste. Agencies should develop the approval
program for the tax credit.
SURPLUS FOOD RECOVERY
Strengthen and Clarify The
Bill Emerson Good Samaritan
Food Donation Act ★
Annual potential to divert 57,000 tons of
food waste, recover 95 million meals, and
produce a net financial benefit of $159
million
190
ISSUE OVERVIEW
While over 10.5% of Americans struggle to satisfy
their food needs, up to 35% of food produced in the
United States goes to waste.
191
Much of this food is
safe, edible, and fit for consumption, but barriers
stand in the way of donation. One of these barriers
is that businesses are reluctant to donate food
because of misperceptions regarding liability
concerns associated with donation, such as a food
recipient getting sick.
192
Congress responded to
these concerns in 1996 by passing The Bill Emerson
Good Samaritan Food Donation Act (Emerson
Act).
193
The Emerson Act encourages food donation
by providing comprehensive civil and criminal
liability protection to food donors, gleaners, and
non-profit organizations that distribute donations to
those experiencing food insecurity.
194
While the Emerson Act provides significant
protections, a 2016 survey conducted by the Food
Waste Reduction Alliance found that 50% of food
manufacturers and 25% of retailers and wholesalers
still cite liability concerns as a main obstacle to food
donation.
195
And, according to ReFED, educating
potential food donors on liability laws has the
potential to divert 57,000 tons of safe, surplus food
from landfills annually.
196
This means that liability
concerns remain a significant barrier with room for
improvement through the Emerson Act.
There are several shortcomings of the Emerson
14
Opportunities to Reduce Food Waste in the2023 Farm Bill
Act that Congress should address to facilitate food
donation. Specifically, Congress should help ensure
there is federal agency capacity to interpret and
provide guidance on the provisions of the Act and
update several areas of the Act to provide additional
flexibility for food donations.
PROVIDE THE USDA WITH AUTHORITY TO
INTERPRET AND ISSUE GUIDANCE ON THE
EMERSON ACT
Many provisions and terms in the Emerson Act are
ambiguous and no federal agency has provided an
authoritative interpretation of the Act’s provisions.
For example, donors must donate in “good faith”
but have no guidance as to what activities meet that
bar, and they cannot act with “gross negligence”
but do not have any guardrails to know what food
donations would be considered gross negligence.
Also, donors may be concerned about facing
liability if they donate a food that is past the date or
mislabeled in some way.
197
Further, the lack of case
law interpreting the Emerson Act makes it dicult
for donors to know how the provisions would be
interpreted by a court.
198
This may deter potential
food donors who want to be sure they will receive
liability protection before they donate. Guidance
can clarify the meaning and interpretation of the
Emerson Act’s provisions.
In the 2018 Farm Bill, Congress took a step toward
increasing the USDA’s responsibility for the Emerson
Act by mandating that the USDA create a Food Loss
and Waste Liaison position to coordinate food waste
eorts. The responsibilities of the Liaison include
to “raise awareness of the liability protections
aorded under the Bill Emerson Good Samaritan
Food Donation Act.”
199
While recent eorts have
been made by the USDA to clarify donation liability
laws as requested by Congress in the 2018 Farm
Bill,
200
the lack of Congressional delegation limits
the agency’s authority. Congress should delegate
authority to the USDA to interpret the Emerson Act
and should require the USDA to write regulations
interpreting and clarifying the terms of the Emerson
Act.
THE EMERSON ACT SHOULD COVER DIRECT
DONATIONS
The Emerson Act currently covers food donated
to non-profit organizations, but it does not cover
food donated directly to individuals.
201
This means
that food producers and licensed food service
establishments that give food directly to people
experiencing food insecurity are not covered
under the Emerson Act’s protections. Extending
protections to direct donations will increase
eciency, reduce costs, and enable timely use
of perishable food. Individuals experiencing food
insecurity would also be able to pick up food from
accessible locations, such as local restaurants and
grocery stores. In order to ensure direct donations
will be made safely, the provisions should be
limited to establishments that already comply with
food safety requirements—such as food service
establishments, institutions, and retail stores—or to
farmers, as fresh produce poses fewer safety risks.
Currently, several states provide enhanced liability
protection for donors who donate directly to the
end recipient, however, to maximize impact, the
protection needs to be expanded by the federal
government.
202
The 2018 Farm Bill amended the Emerson Act to
define a new term, “qualified direct donor” and
instructed the USDA to issue guidance on the
protections available to those direct donors.
203
However, since the farm bill did not update
the Emerson Act itself, it did not actually oer
protection to qualified direct donors. Oering
protections for direct donors would be in line
with the growing support to oer protection to
donations directly to food-insecure individuals
rather than only those made through intermediary
non-profits.
204
THE EMERSON ACT SHOULD COVER NON-PROFIT
ORGANIZATIONS CHARGING A SMALL FEE
The Emerson Act only provides liability protections
to donors and non-profit food recovery
organizations when the individual receiving the
food “is not required to give anything of monetary
value.”
205
This means that the Emerson Act does
not extend liability protection when the ultimate
recipient pays, even at a reduced rate, for food. As
a result, innovative food recovery and repurposing
models are excluded from coverage. These models,
such as social supermarkets that sell surplus food
at a low cost,
206
can fill a need for individuals
experiencing food insecurity in addition to food
assistance programs or pantries.
Several social supermarkets in the United States
have shown potential for success.
207
Innovative retail
models are particularly eective in geographical
Opportunities to Reduce Food Waste in the2023 Farm Bill
15
areas with limited access to aordable and
nutritious food. The USDA estimates that up to
17.4% of the population lives in such locations.
208
In Massachusetts, The Daily Table is a social
supermarket with three locations that works with
local food producers to recover healthy food that
they later oer at reduced prices.
209
The Daily Table
provides 1 million nutritional servings every month,
with an average savings of 30% compared to other
grocery stores.
210
It also employs over 65 individuals,
many of whom are local community members.
211
In
2016, ReFED estimated that innovative retail models
and secondary resellers have the potential to divert
167,000 tons of safe, surplus food from landfills per
year and to provide $37 million per year in economic
value.
212
Currently, the Emerson Act’s “no-charge”
provision deters donations to innovative non-
profit organizations and discourages traditional
food recovery organizations from testing out new
models due to fear of losing liability coverage.
While providing food free of charge to individuals
in emergency situations can be necessary, making
space for other food recovery models such as social
supermarkets enables food recovery organizations
to reach a broader range of individuals experiencing
food insecurity and food access challenges.
Requiring that the recipient organization be a
non-profit, as the Emerson Act does, ensures that
any profits will be used for the organization to
further serve its charitable purpose.
213
Some states
already provide liability protection to non-profit
organizations that sell food at a low cost and to
the donors that donate to them.
214
Congress should
institute this across all states by amending the
Emerson Act to provide liability protection even if
food is sold to the end recipient at a low price that
reflect the cost of handling, transporting, or storing
the food.
IMPLEMENTATION OPPORTUNITY
Liability protection is a low-cost
policy change that can unlock
more food donation. Congress
should improve the Emerson Act’s
protections and clarity through the
2023 Farm Bill in the ways outlined
above. Congress can make these changes in a
new Food Waste Reduction Title or through the
Miscellaneous Title. The bipartisan, bicameral Food
Donation Improvement Act of 2021 oers model
language that could be used to implement these
changes.
215
Increase Funding Support
for Food Recovery
Infrastructure and for Post-
Harvest Food Recovery
Improving donation transportation and
storage infrastructure has the annual
potential to divert 908,000 tons of food
waste, reduce 1.316 million metric tons
of CO
2
e, and save 127.6 billion gallons of
water, with a net financial benefit of $3.287
billion
216
ISSUE OVERVIEW
The costs and logistical challenges of preparing,
processing, and transporting food for donation
make it financially dicult for many food producers
and vendors to donate surplus food.
217
Many food
donors are not willing or able to spend additional
money in order to donate food that they would
otherwise send to disposal. Thus, food recovery
organizations generally need to bear these
costs in order to make donation cost-eective
for donors. However, since the funds of food
recovery organizations are limited, requiring these
organizations to bear the costs of food recovery
may prevent them from accepting all food donations
or expanding operations to new donors or areas.
In addition to transportation costs, when food
recovery organizations do receive donated food,
capacity limitations at food recovery organizations
can be a bottleneck leading to waste.
218
Canning,
freezing, or processing food allows organizations
to handle large volumes of perishable produce.
However, processing requires access to sucient
facilities, appropriate equipment, and trained sta;
these eorts thus are limited by an organization’s
resources.
The federal government can support food recovery
infrastructure through grants to food recovery
organizations. Further, the government can utilize
the Local Agricultural Market Program (LAMP) to
support farmers in developing supply relationships
to provide surplus food to food recovery
organizations that can help surplus food get to
food-insecure individuals. Investing in food recovery
infrastructure can create new and more sustainable
methods for food recovery while supporting both
producers and food recovery organizations.
16
Opportunities to Reduce Food Waste in the2023 Farm Bill
INVESTING IN FOOD RECOVERY INFRASTRUCTURE
Investing in food recovery infrastructure, like
transportation and storage, can support economic
development while strengthening emergency food
assistance. Scaling up food recovery operations
contributes to local economies by generating new
jobs in logistics and transportation, while also
increasing access to food and reducing the amount
of food going to waste.
219
ReFED estimates that an
annual investment of $442 million, with $69.3 million
from government sources, in transportation for food
recovery would have a potential net benefit of $2.46
billion.
220
In June 2021, as a one time COVID-19 response
initiative, the USDA announced funding of up to
$100 million in food recovery infrastructure grants
for food assistance organizations, particularly
those that reach underserved areas.
221
The grants
can be used for eorts such as developing storage
and refrigeration capacity, which help these
organizations to rescue more food by increasing
their capacity.
222
Given the vast potential benefit of investments
in food recovery infrastructure, Congress should
ensure that these grants are integrated into regular
USDA’s operations instead of being a one-time
initiative. Alternatively, Congress should expand
its investment beyond this COVID-19 response
program.
While existing grants are focused on infrastructure,
another avenue with the potential to make a
significant impact is technological solutions
supporting food recovery. Congress should
authorize funding for grants to food recovery
organizations and other nonprofit and community
based organizations developing donation matching
infrastructure, such as a website or application,
that would provide real time updates to connect
organizations with surplus food with those able to
distribute it. Such technology exists,
223
but current
coverage is spotty and limited to only certain parts
of the country. These grants could help support new
solutions or the expansion of existing technology to
additional areas.
One model to support this ongoing need is for
Congress to create a new block grant program for
the USDA to award annual grants to states to carry
out projects that develop and support food recovery
infrastructure and innovative food distribution
models. States would be able to distribute their
block grant funds to applicable food recovery
organizations and local governments that apply
for funding to fill a gap in needed food recovery
infrastructure. This grant format would enable state
governments to take a holistic approach to food
recovery within their state and use grant funding
to support geographic regions that would most
benefit from new or improved food recovery and
distribution infrastructure. This program should
be modeled o the Specialty Crop Block Grant
Program, which oers annual grants to state
agriculture departments to implement projects that
increase specialty crop competitiveness.
224
ENHANCE GRANT PROGRAMS INCLUDING
COMMUNITY FOOD PROJECT (CFP) AND LOCAL
AGRICULTURAL MARKET PROGRAM (LAMP) TO
SUPPORT POST-HARVEST RECOVERY
The USDA already has a variety of grant programs
that could help support infrastructure for food
recovery, such as CFP grants and funding under
LAMP. Amending and enhancing these grants
can support long-term food recovery eorts and
innovative food recovery models.
CFP grants support community-based projects
that can become self-sucient after a one-time
infusion of federal funds and provide communities
with access to healthy, local foods.
225
The program
is particularly well-suited to promote innovation,
reflected by its goal to “support the development of
entrepreneurial projects”
226
and its prioritization of
organizations with innovative models for reducing
food insecurity.
227
CFP already includes gleaners among its eligible
recipients and should continue to promote its
relevance for both gleaners and other food recovery
organizations.
228
The 2018 Farm Bill provided $5
million annually in mandatory funding for CFP,
229
less
than the $9 million provided annually in the 2014
Farm Bill.
230
This makes an already competitive CFP
grant even more dicult to receive, with only 18%
of applications receiving funding.
231
Congress should
increase funding for CFP and earmark some portion
of this funding for community projects that focus on
food recovery.
LAMP is an umbrella program created by the 2018
Farm Bill that includes the Value-Added Producer
Grant (VAPG), the Farmers Market and Local Food
Promotion Program (FMLFPP), and the Regional
Food System Partnership (RFSP).
232
The 2018
Opportunities to Reduce Food Waste in the2023 Farm Bill
17
Farm Bill allocated $50 million annually to support
grants of up to $500,000 under these programs.
233
This allocation includes funding for “new business
opportunities and marketing strategies to reduce
on-farm food waste,” which is responsible for 21%
of the United States’ total food waste.
234
However,
despite the fact that the LAMP statutory authority
allows the USDA to fund projects that reduce on-
farm food waste and support regional and local
food recovery infrastructure, in 2021, only 1 out of 88
Farmers Market Promotion Program projects
235
and
3 out of 84 Local Food Promotion Program projects
worked with food banks.
236
Congress could make the program more accessible
and more impactful by increasing funding, removing
the matching funds requirement, and earmarking
some portion of funding for food recovery projects.
In May 2021, the USDA expanded LAMP funding due
to the COVID-19 pandemic, oering $92.2 million
in grants under LAMP.
237
Making this increased
funding permanent or further increasing funding in
the 2023 Farm Bill could allow more organizations
to receive grants under LAMP, which would help
fund more innovation. In addition, Congress could
remove matching funds mandates that require
grant recipients to contribute either 25% (FMLFPP
and RSFP) or 100% (VAPG) of the grant’s value.
238
This would eliminate barriers for potential grantees,
such as startup organizations that may not have
sucient funds to match grants at the start of their
operations. Setting aside dedicated funding within
LAMP for food recovery could boost the program’s
impact in the space as well. Congress should also
extend VAPG funding to non-profits; at present,
this funding cannot be used by food recovery
organizations as most of these organizations
are structured as non-profits, partially to take
advantage of benefits available for food donation to
non-profit organizations.
IMPLEMENTATION OPPORTUNITY
Congress should increase funding
for food recovery infrastructure,
either through new 2023 Farm Bill
investments or by making COVID-
specific investments permanent.
Congress should establish a new
block grant program that funds food recovery and
distribution infrastructure at the state level. This
program could be established in the Nutrition Title
of the farm bill. Congress should also support post-
harvest food recovery by increasing funding for
the CFP grant program through the Nutrition Title
of the farm bill and earmarking a portion for food
recovery projects. Within the Horticulture Title of
the farm bill, Congress should increase funding for
LAMP, remove or reduce the matching requirements,
extend VAPG funding to non-profits, and earmark a
portion for food waste reduction and food recovery.
Offer Grant Resources and
Procurement Programs to
Increase Food Recovery
from Farms
Interventions
aimed at optimizing on-farm
harvests could produce a combined net
financial benefit of over $8 billion
239
ISSUE OVERVIEW
As the USDA has noted, food waste from farms
is a significant problem.
240
This is especially true
for produce, which is more perishable than grain
crops or other commodity crops.
241
In 2019, farms
wasted 16.7 million tons of produce.
242
Not only
is this a staggering amount of safe food that
could otherwise have been donated to people
experiencing food insecurity, but produce is a highly
nutritious product and may not otherwise be readily
available to those facing food insecurity. USDA
programs that connect food-insecure Americans
with surplus food from farms fill an important gap.
ADJUST AND INCREASE FUNDING OF THE TEFAP
FARM TO FOOD BANK PROGRAM
In order to start addressing the financial hurdles
to harvesting surplus crops for donation, the
2018 Farm Bill created a new program within The
Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP),
called the TEFAP Farm to Food Bank Project
Grants. This grant program aims to reduce food
waste, provide food to individuals, and develop
relationships between food providers and food
recovery organizations.
243
The TEFAP Farm to Food
Bank Project has a budget of $4 million annually to
fund projects that involve “harvesting, processing,
packaging, or transportation” of food products
donated by farmers, processors, or distributors to
emergency feeding organizations.
244
The grant
covers costs including those associated with
18
Opportunities to Reduce Food Waste in the2023 Farm Bill
harvesting food, transportation from farms to food
recovery organizations, and stipends or salaries
for volunteers/staff members working on a TEFAP
Farm to Food Bank Project, but the grant cannot be
used for purchasing the food itself.
245
The USDA
provides states with funding under the TEFAP Farm
to Food Bank Project, and states have discretion in
choosing how to allocate the funds.
246
Twenty-nine
states are participating in the project in FY2022,
including 7 states that have not previously
participated.
247
Several food recovery organizations (“Emergency
Feeding Organizations,” or EFOs, under the
statute
248
) that were funded through the TEFAP
Farm to Food Bank Project report great success.
249
One EFO reported that the funding helped them
recover over 100,000 pounds of produce that
would otherwise have gone to waste in 2020.
250
This funding can be crucial to the functioning of
EFOs, as supply chain issues, labor shortages, and
the rising cost of pallets have created challenges in
food recovery.
While the grant program has been highly successful,
there are some opportunities for improvement.
First, the farm bill should remove or reduce the
requirement of a 50% match by states or EFOs.
251
EFOs struggle to meet this matching requirement,
creating unnecessary barriers to access. Second,
increasing the funding of the TEF
AP Farm to Food
Bank Project could encourage increased and more
consistent state participation. The USDA releases
potential allocation amounts for each state if every
state participated.
252
However, the low allocating
funding amounts—less than $30,000 for more than
10 states
253
—may contribute to the low participation
rate among states (ranging from 19 states in 2020
to 29 states in 2022), as the limited award may
disincentivize states from spending resources to
update their state plan. However, states that do
participate are provided additional funds from the
non-participating states, which may encourage their
continuous participation.
254
The 2023 Farm Bill
should dedicate additional funding to the grant
program to incentivize increased state
participation and ensure that states receive
adequate funding.
ESTABLISH FUNDING TO HARVEST AND DONATE
SURPLUS FOOD FROM FARMS
As another avenue to support food recovery from
farms, Congress should establish permanent
funding for the purchase and donation of surplus
food from farms.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, the Farmers to
Families Food Box Program provided over 173
million boxes of food to food-insecure Americans.
255
After the program ended, the USDA utilized some
of its ongoing funding for initiatives like TEFAP
fresh produce boxes for food banks and the Dairy
Donation Program as well as funding for local food
distribution infrastructure—mentioned in greater
detail in the next section—and for cooperative
purchasing agreements with states.
256
The Farmers to Families Food Box Program helped
mitigate distributor job loss, created contracting
opportunities for small- and mid-sized farms (in
early rounds of the program), and helped deliver
food to food-insecure individuals in many parts
of the country. However, the program could have
better supported BIPOC-owned, women-owned,
and local farms, ensured equitable distribution
of food assistance to food-insecure populations
around the country, and focused some attention on
guaranteeing the program did not have the adverse
eect of contributing to food waste.
257
Congress should designate funding for a revamped
program to purchase and distribute surplus food
that utilizes the Farmers to Families Food Box
Program as a model, but which addresses some of
its primary issues and critiques. Any such program
funded by Congress should focus on ensuring that
the food procured and donated under the program
is truly food that would otherwise have gone to
waste—for example, produce that is o-grade
and not fit for consumer markets, or produce that
is clearly identified as surplus—thereby ensuring
the program helps to reduce the amount of food
going to waste and does not cannibalize market
opportunities for food. Congress should ensure
such a program has several key features, such
as: ensuring that end recipients have the dignity
of choice to choose produce that is culturally-
appropriate, healthy, and desirable to them (rather
than being given a standard, one-size-fits all
assortment); ensuring that food is high quality and
not at risk of spoilage; reporting the program’s
recovery of food that would otherwise be wasted;
ensuring compensation for transportation costs
incurred by local nonprofits associated with last
mile delivery; requiring program participants
(including growers, distributors, and food recovery
organizations) to measure and report their own food
waste levels of food procured under the program;
and measuring the program’s procurement from
woman-owned farms, BIPOC-owned farms, and
other socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers.
Opportunities to Reduce Food Waste in the2023 Farm Bill
19
The proposed Fresh Produce Procurement Reform
Act of 2021 provides a model that incorporates
some of these suggestions.
258
This Act would create
a USDA program to contract with farmers and other
food providers, procuring fresh produce for food
recovery organizations to provide to food-insecure
individuals. This Act would prioritize socially
disadvantaged farmers and encourage sourcing
from small- and mid-sized growers, furthering
equity goals and addressing related critiques of the
Farmers to Families Food Box Program.
259
IMPLEMENTA
TION OPPORTUNITY
Additionally, Congress should
expand the TEFAP Farm to Food
Bank Project in the Nutrition Title of
the 2023 Farm Bill and reduce or
remove the state match requirement.
Congress should designate funding
for a tailored surplus food purchase and donation
program, modeled from the Farmers to Families
Food Box Program but with upgrades to address
equity and ensure the program is reducing rather
than furthering food waste.
Encourage USDA Grant and
Loan Recipients to Donate
Surplus Food by Incentivizing
Food Donation
ISSUE OVERVIEW
As discussed in the previous section, the
USDA supports regional and local food system
development through grant programs like LAMP
and CFP.
260
These grants have generated new
income sources for small, beginning, veteran, and
socially disadvantaged farmers and created new
market opportunities for value-added and niche
products.
261
The grant recipients often are non-profit
and farm-serving organizations that have helped
strengthen and stabilize participating farmers
markets by creating marketing space; oering
training programs; developing peer-to-peer learning
networks; strengthening regional and local food
system infrastructure and increasing vendor sales
and on-farm revenue; and developing food hubs and
shared use kitchens to increase regional capacity for
processing, distribution, and storage.
262
Given the
nature of the work funded by these grants, which
aims to support food system development and
opportunities for food producers, the USDA should
also leverage these grant programs to incentivize
food donation and food waste reduction.
GRANT SELECTION PREFERENCES
Congress should demonstrate its commitment to
food waste reduction by encouraging all programs
or organizations applying for USDA grant funding
to donate surplus food and prevent food from
being wasted in the first place. The USDA has
already required program participants to donate
food in certain contexts, like the USDA Farmers
Market program,
263
which shows the feasibility of
the USDA taking such action. Specifically, the USDA
Farmers Market program “requires farmers and
vendors to donate surplus food and food products
at the end of each market day to a local non-profit
organization identified by the USDA.”
264
Expanding
this premise to other USDA grant programs could
have a significant impact on food waste reduction.
This could be done by modifying grant selection
processes to preference applicants with surplus
food donation contracts with a food recovery
organization. This measure would encourage
applicants to take the first step in donating edible
food that would otherwise be wasted. As a model,
California has regulations to require food donation
contracts as part of their eort to reduce short-
lived climate pollutants.
265
Starting in 2022, food
generators like supermarkets and distributors are
obligated to recover as much food as possible that
would otherwise be wasted.
266
To prove they have
a plan to do this, food generators must have a
contract or written agreement with a food recovery
organization or service.
267
This requirement ensures
that when food providers have surplus food,
donating the food will not impose an additional
burden of finding a food recovery organization to
accept that food.
Congress should enact these priorities and
requirements for any grant programs where
grant money is used for food procurement or for
developing markets for food. LAMP programs, which
received an infusion of $92.2 million in May 2021,
are a prime example.
268
$76.9 million of this funding
will go to FMLFPP, supporting “direct-to-consumer
markets like farmers markets” and “indirect-to-
consumer markets like food hubs and value-added
product incubators.”
269
Since the USDA is providing
20
Opportunities to Reduce Food Waste in the2023 Farm Bill
funds to support facilities or markets where
food will be developed or sold (and often where
food may be wasted), it is a great opportunity to
incentivize grantees to donate food. While the goals
of these grant programs should be the priority,
Congress can instruct the USDA to incorporate a
food donation contract incentive or requirement
into all relevant grant programs.
IMPLEMENTATION OPPORTUNITY
In the next farm bill, Congress
should direct the USDA to prioritize
grant applicants that have a food
donation contract in place with a food
recovery organization. This should be
implemented across a range of farm
bill grant programs, with a focus on grant programs
in which grantees procure or develop markets for
food (throughout various titles such as through
LAMP in the Horticulture Title and CFP in the
Nutrition Title).
Expand Federal Tax Incentives
for Food Donation ★
ISSUE OVERVIEW
Food donation can be an expensive and time-
consuming process. Donors sometimes allocate
substantial time and money to harvest, package,
transport, and deliver food products to donees.
270
Farmers and food businesses may often find it less
expensive or onerous to till under or send surplus
food to landfills instead of donating it.
Tax incentives can oset some donation costs and
make donation more financially feasible. Under
federal law, two tax incentives are available for food
donation: the general deduction and the enhanced
deduction. The general deduction allows taxpayers
to claim a deduction in the amount of the basis
value of the donation (the cost to acquire the
product) and is available for all in-kind donations.
271
The enhanced deduction is specific to food
products and enables a donor of food to deduct the
lesser of (a) twice the basis value or (b) the basis
value of the food plus 50% of the expected profit
margin of the product (fair market value minus basis
value).
272
Through the enhanced deduction for food
donations, a donor may be able to deduct up to
twice as much as the general deduction.
273
Tax benefits are a cost-eective strategy to promote
food donation, as donors only receive the incentive
if they indeed make a donation. Further, they have
been successful in reducing food waste by lowering
the cost barrier to donation. For instance, in 2005,
Congress expanded the coverage of the enhanced
deduction to include all business entities with
the aim of encouraging more food donation.
274
This led to an increase of 137% in donations
over the next year.
275
Recognizing the program’s
success, Congress made the change permanent
by expanding enhanced deduction coverage to all
businesses in the Protecting Americans from Tax
Hikes Act of 2015 (PATH Act).
276
This is a welcome
development and allows more companies to utilize
the enhanced deduction.
CREATE AN ALTERNATE TAX CREDIT FOR FOOD
DONATION
Congress should further develop eective tax
incentives to maximize food recovery and donation.
With the PATH Act, enhanced donations are now
technically available to all businesses; however, tax
deductions are generally not equally beneficial to
all companies. A tax deduction lowers a donor’s
taxable income (which determines the amount
of taxes owed).
277
For smaller companies, such as
small- and mid-sized farmers and independent food
businesses that operate on a low-profit margin,
a deduction is not an eective incentive because
taxable income may already be quite low. Farmers
also may not claim an enhanced tax deduction
because it requires too much record-keeping (to
determine the value of the deduction as laid out
above). By contrast, a tax credit directly applies to
and reduces the amount of taxes owed,
278
and is
often more beneficial to lower-margin businesses.
Congress should create an alternative tax credit and
give farmers the choice between this tax credit and
the enhanced tax deduction. Oering a tax credit
could make food donation more financially feasible
for farmers and make it easier to donate surplus
foods. Several states have already created a tax
credit applicable to farmers, in recognition of the
fact that this additional benefit is needed to support
donation from farms.
279
TAX BENEFITS SHOULD ACCOUNT FOR
UNDERLYING COSTS IN DONATIONS
An eective food donation tax incentive also should
Opportunities to Reduce Food Waste in the2023 Farm Bill
21
account for the underlying costs donors incur
while donating food, such as transportation, food
storage, and labor needed to prepare and transport
donated food. Improving donation transportation
and storage infrastructure has the annual potential
to divert 908,000 tons of food waste, reduce 1.307
million metric tons of CO
2
e, and save 127.6 billion
gallons of water, producing a net financial benefit
of $2.873 billion
280
These costs can add up quickly,
deterring donation eorts in favor of cheaper
options like sending food to the landfill.
To solve this problem, Congress should amend
the enhanced tax deduction for food donation to
include an additional tax deduction to oset the
costs of transportation, labor, or storage of food for
donation. For example, the incentive could oer a
benefit to logistics and transportation companies
that ship donated products, storage providers who
store surplus inventory until donation, or retailers/
producers that either directly deliver or pay for
the shipment of their donation. California has
implemented such a strategy at the state level,
oering a 50% tax credit for transporting donated
food.
281
Implementing a similar incentive at the
federal level would help oset donation costs.
Focusing on transportation and storage would
address a significant cost barrier for donors and
help get more food to those who need it most.
CONGRESS SHOULD AMEND RESTRICTIONS
ON THE ENHANCED DEDUCTION TO PROMOTE
INNOVATION
Congress should amend the restrictions imposed
by the federal enhanced tax deduction to promote
innovation and streamline the donation process. Like
the Emerson Act described above,
282
the enhanced
tax deduction is only available to donors who make
donations to non-profit organizations that do not
charge the end-users for the food.
283
Because of this
“no-charge” requirement, donors cannot claim the
enhanced deduction for donations made to a food
recovery organization that charges even a low price
to the end recipient. This disincentivizes donating
to innovative food recovery and donations groups.
Congress should allow the enhanced tax deduction
to be claimed when donations are made to a non-
profit organization that either distributes the food
for free or at a low cost to cover the expenses
associated with handling the food.
IMPLEMENTATION OPPORTUNITY
In the 2023 Farm Bill, Congress
should create an alternative food
donation tax credit that farmers
can opt to claim instead of the
enhanced tax deduction. It should
also amend the current enhanced
deduction to oset the underlying costs donors
incur while donating food, such as transportation
and storage. In addition, Congress should incentivize
innovative food recovery models by removing the
requirement that non-profit organizations provide
donated food for free. Language implementing the
above recommendations could be taken from the
bipartisan Further Incentivizing Nutritious Donations
of Food Act or FIND Food Act of 2022 (H.R. 7317,
117th Cong. (2d Sess., 2022)).
The 2008 Farm Bill had a title dedicated to tax
issues: the Trade and Tax Provisions in the Farm
Bill.
284
The next farm bill can revive the tax title from
2008 or create a new Food Waste Reduction Title
and include these provisions there. Alternatively, the
tax incentives can be placed in another existing title
such as the Horticulture Title or the Miscellaneous
Title.
Instruct the USDA Risk
Management Agency and
Approved Crop Insurance
Providers to Better Support
Gleaning
Gleaning has the annual potential to divert
78,500 tons of food waste and save 2.14
billion gallons of water, with a net financial
benefit of $152 million
285
ISSUE OVERVIEW
The USDA Risk Management Agency (RMA) permits
and encourages farmers to donate damaged crops
for gleaning purposes while still allowing farmers
to receive insurance compensation for their lost
crops.
286
Despite policies that allow for gleaning,
few farmers take advantage of these policies
22
Opportunities to Reduce Food Waste in the2023 Farm Bill
due to a deficit in knowledge around gleaning
opportunities—whether the RMA allows gleaning
of crops after an insurance claim has been made,
when/how gleaning is permitted, and what legal
risks exist for farmers. The RMA has created
one document—a one-page gleaning crop fact
sheet published in 2017—to educate farmers and
crop insurance agencies on gleaning policies,
287
but this document has proven insucient as
miscommunication and confusion still exists around
gleaning.
288
One major source of confusion surrounds whether
farmers can allow gleaning of crops covered under
federal crop insurance. The government’s two
primary programs for crop insurance, the Federal
Crop Insurance Program (FCIP) and the Noninsured
Crop Disaster Assistance Program (NAP), permit
farmers to allow gleaning on their farms.
289
However,
the requirements under these programs can be
ambiguous, leaving farmers unsure whether they
will receive the insurance payments they rely on if
they allow gleaning on their farms.
290
This confusion
increases the likelihood that farmers will let their
produce go to waste rather than allowing gleaning
to take place.
FCIP and NAP guidelines both limit many aspects
of the gleaning process. First, FCIP and NAP only
allow gleaning when it is done by a 501(c)(3) non-
profit and the insured producer has not received
any compensation in exchange for the crops.
291
If
the farmer receives any compensation in exchange
for the crops, the harvesting will not be considered
gleaning, and the producer will be unable to
collect crop insurance on the produce.
292
However,
farmers are still able to receive their insurance
payments if they receive compensation for non-
crop expenses, such as labor for harvesting or the
transportation of gleaned crops.
293
Additionally,
FCIP and NAP limit how gleaning can be done.
294
Before allowing gleaning, a producer must first
have the fields inspected by a qualified Commodity
Credit Corporation loss adjuster who will approve
the insurance claim, and the producer must keep
a record of the quantity of the crop gleaned.
295
When the adjuster visits the fields, they provide the
farmer with a certificate for destruction that must
be completed by the farmer. Some farmers believe
that this certificate requires the leftover crops to
be destroyed in front of the insurance provider;
however, that is only the case for tobacco plants, a
crop that would not be gleaned.
296
For other crops,
the farmer can allow for gleaning of the crops after
receiving the certificate rather than destroying the
remaining crops, as long as no compensation is
collected for the crops.
297
Another area of confusion is whether farmers
may collect crop insurance if they also file for the
enhanced tax deduction for donated food. Farmers
are concerned tax deductions may fall under the
aforementioned prohibition on compensation for
the gleaned crops—but this is a misunderstanding.
The RMA guidance states that “situations not to
be considered compensation for the crop include
state tax credits and other state and federal tax
advantages for donating gleaned commodities.”
298
However, many farmers still mistakenly believe that
they cannot benefit from the enhanced deduction
for food donations if they have filed a crop
insurance claim for the crops.
Another barrier to gleaning is fear regarding
potential liability if a volunteer gleaner were to be
injured on a farmer’s land. However, this concern is
misplaced as farmers are protected by federal law
under the Emerson Act.
299
Section D of the Emerson
Act provides that a person who allows the gleaning
of donations will not be subject to civil or criminal
liability that arises due to the injury or death of the
gleaner.
300
Despite this existing liability protection,
many farmers remain unwilling to allow gleaners
onto their land because they believe there is still a
liability risk.
301
OPPORTUNITY FOR CLARIFYING RMA GUIDANCE
There is a general lack of awareness regarding
gleaning as an option for farmers, particularly
regarding crops for which a farmer has filed a crop
insurance claim. RMA guidance is very limited,
and crop insurance agents are not encouraged
to promote gleaning to farmers and may also
themselves misunderstand the gleaning policies.
Thus, the burden of educating farmers on gleaning
falls upon gleaning organizations which lack the
capacity and funding to promote awareness.
302
Congress should require the USDA to develop
and disseminate semi-annual information sheets
or reminder notices to farmers, crop insurance
agents, RMA agents, and gleaning organizations.
This will ensure that all parties involved can
promote gleaning and eectively address any
concerns or apprehensions farmers may have. This
guidance should, (1) promote gleaning and increase
awareness of gleaning as an option for farmers who
may be entirely unaware of gleaning practices; (2)
clarify how crop insurance allows for gleaning (to
Opportunities to Reduce Food Waste in the2023 Farm Bill
23
this, it should explain that crop insurance can still be
collected if farmers allow for gleaning),
303
clarify that
farmers can still claim tax incentives for donated
food in addition to crop insurance, and clarify that
farmers can receive payment for non-crop expenses
associated with gleaning (i.e., transportation,
labor);
304
(3) provide contact information for local
gleaning organizations for each farmer to the extent
possible; and (4) ensure that farmers are aware that
they are protected from liability claims regarding
both the safety of the food gleaned and for any
injuries sustained by volunteers on their land under
the Emerson Act.
305
The USDA could utilize the
USDA Cooperative Extension service, which already
has established connections to producers across the
United States, to disseminate gleaning guidance to
farmers.
IMPLEMENTATION OPPORTUNITY
Congress should use the 2023 Farm
Bill to instruct the RMA to institute an
expanded education and awareness
program by developing more
guidance materials and utilizing semi-
annual reminders. This instruction can
be included within the Crop Insurance Title, which
addresses FCIP, or the Commodities Title, which
addresses NAP.
306
This change would encourage
more farmers to allow for gleaning of their lands,
thus reducing the number of crops that go to
waste and allowing for the healthiest foods—fruits
and vegetables—to be made available to people
experiencing food insecurity.
FOOD WASTE RECYCLING
Provide Grants to Support
Proven State and Local
Policies that Reduce Food
Waste Disposed in Landfills
or Incinerators ★
ISSUE OVERVIEW
The ongoing reliance on landfills to manage organic
waste is problematic for several reasons. Landfills
continue to be overburdened by organic waste
(which makes up around 24.1% of municipal solid
waste in landfills by weight),
307
and states and cities
are running out of space to store their waste.
308
Moreover, as food items decompose in landfills, they
release harmful greenhouse gases at alarming rates.
Municipal waste landfills are the third-largest source
of human-created methane emissions, accounting
for 15.1% of methane created by humans in the
United States in 2019
309
and 8-10% of all global
anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions from 2010
to 2016.
310
Eighty times more portent than CO
2
in
the short term, and 25 times more potent than CO
2
overall
311
methane traps heat in the atmosphere and
disrupts geologic processes such as air and water
temperatures, weather, and the carbon cycle.
312
These disruptions expose human health, agriculture,
and other natural ecosystems and resources to
potential harms.
313
ORGANIC WASTE BANS
Organic waste bans, mandatory recycling laws,
waste diversion requirements, food donation
requirements, landfill taxes, and similar policies to
reduce food in landfills are proven policies to reduce
food waste and are growing in popularity. These
policies take various actions to limit the amount
of food that goes to landfills or incinerators or to
make it more costly to send food to landfills or
24
Opportunities to Reduce Food Waste in the2023 Farm Bill
incinerators. For example, organic waste bans are
policies that prevent entities that produce a certain
threshold of food waste (e.g., grocery stores and
hospitals) from transporting that waste to landfills
or incinerators, subject to certain exceptions. Where
these bans are implemented, waste generators can
no longer rely on waste disposal and must utilize
other strategies to reduce their footprint. Waste
generators might reduce food waste by oering
smaller portions, donating surplus food, recycling
food scraps, or repurposing their leftovers. In
addition to organic waste bans, other eective
policy options include mandated food scrap
recycling,
314
Pay-As-You-Throw policies that charge
a higher fee for sending organic waste to landfills,
315
and an increased landfill tax charged per unit of
trash in addition to landfill tipping fees.
316
These types of policies have been shown to
successfully reduce food waste. In Massachusetts,
after one year with an organic waste ban, businesses
diverted food waste from landfills at a rate five-
times higher than before the organic was ban
was adopted.
317
Massachusetts saw more than a
25,000-ton increase in food donation.
318
Vermont
also saw a 60% increase in food donation following
implementation of the state’s organic waste ban.
319
Organic waste bans are gaining popularity as a
food waste reduction model, as evidenced by
a recent uptake of several states and localities.
Connecticut,
320
Massachusetts,
321
New York,
322
Rhode Island,
323
New Jersey,
324
Maryland,
325
and
Vermont,
326
have all adopted state organic waste
bans, and California enacted a waste recycling
law that requires commercial waste generators
to compost or anaerobically digest their organic
waste.
327
California also enacted a law requiring
businesses in the state to donate at least 20% of
edible food that is currently wasted.
328
Austin (TX),
Boulder (CO), Hennepin County (MN), Portland
(OR), New York City (NY), San Francisco (CA), and
Seattle (WA), enacted local organic waste bans,
329
and Washington, D.C., recently enacted a mandatory
waste recycling law.
330
Another opportunity to improve food waste
diversion is to improve food waste measurement
strategies. There is no national requirement for
businesses or waste facilities to measure food waste,
and state- or city-level studies are conducted only
periodically or inconsistently. A lack of transparency
around food waste makes it dicult for state
and local governments to monitor organic waste
generation and limits the government’s ability to
implement tailored and innovative waste reduction
strategies.
Because waste is managed on the state and local
level, state and local actors are more familiar with
regional and local food waste issues than are
federal leaders; they are the actors best situated
to identify and implement most organic waste
reduction initiatives. However, studying, planning,
implementing, and enforcing such initiatives is
costly. The federal government can support these
promising policies by providing funding to states
and localities to adopt proven policies to reduce
food waste. The funding could be used to plan,
implement, or enforce these policies. Funding
could also be used to support the creation of a
state or local government sta position specifically
committed to food waste reduction coordination,
which would then oversee the jurisdiction’s new
food waste reduction policies. By providing funding
for states or localities to plan or implement these
policies, Congress can incentivize the uptake of
such projects and help actualize the environmental
and societal benefits associated with food waste
reduction projects.
One model to support these state and local policies
is articulated in the proposed Zero Food Waste Act
of 2021.
331
This Act would create a grant program
for state, tribal, and local governments to reduce
the amount of food waste by 50% by 2030.
332
Under
this Act, grants may be awarded to an eligible
entity that is a nonprofit organization to study the
generation of food waste in the state or area in
which the entity is located, identify policies and
programs that significantly reduce the amount of
food waste, and develop a plan under which the
organization will carry out at least one food waste
reduction activity.
333
Alternatively, a grant may be
awarded to collect and publish data on the amount
of food waste generated in a state or area in which
the origination is located or for an organization
that carries out or otherwise supports a food waste
reduction activity.
334
IMPLEMENTATION OPPORTUNITY
The next farm bill should provide
grants to state and local governments,
and to public-private partnerships, to
encourage them to implement proven
or promising food waste reduction
Opportunities to Reduce Food Waste in the2023 Farm Bill
25
policies, such as organic waste bans, mandatory
recycling laws, landfill taxes, Pay-As-You-Throw laws,
and other policy measures to make it comparatively
costlier or more dicult to send food to landfills or
incinerators.
To accelerate the adoption of these strategies, the
farm bill should provide $650 million per year for
ten years for state, local, and tribal governments,
independently or as part of a public-private
partnership to plan or implement an organic waste
ban or other proven food waste reduction policy.
335
As part of this program, Congress should require the
USDA (in collaboration with the EPA) to maintain
a database of the state and local food waste
reduction policies that have proven successful and
data on their impacts.
This program should be established within the
Miscellaneous Title or a dedicated Food Waste
Reduction Title.
Provide Grants and Loans
for the Development of
Organic Waste Processing
Infrastructure ★
Investing in centralized anaerobic and
composting infrastructure has the annual
potential to divert 17.64 million tons of
food waste and reduce 5.852 million metric
tons of CO
2
e, with a net financial benefit of
$220.4 million
336
ISSUE OVERVIEW
In addition to implementing waste bans, zero waste
goals, and waste prevention plans, states and local
communities must also develop their organic waste
processing capabilities to manage the organic waste
diverted from landfills and to realize the benefits of
these strategies.
Both compost and anaerobic digestion
infrastructure have the potential to convert food
waste into productive soil amendments. Adding
compost to soil improves soil structure, increases
water and nutrient retention capacity, and
contributes nutrients and carbon to often-depleted
soil.
337
In fact, initial findings from University of
California-Berkeley’s Silver Lab show that food-
waste derived compost poses better climate
change mitigation potential than manure or plant
waste compost.
338
Recent studies examining
industrial composting processes continue to
improve the greenhouse gas capture potential of
such facilities.
339
Anaerobic digestion infrastructure
simultaneously captures biogas, a type of energy
that can fuel vehicles and generate electricity. The
EPA, in February 2022, recognized the importance
of scaling anaerobic digestion capacity across the
country and delegated $2 million to 11 organizations
for anaerobic digestion projects.
340
Alternative to compost and anaerobic digestion,
animal feed facilities take animal and/or vegetable
food scraps, heat treat them, and re-sell them
as animal feed for swine and cattle.
341
Not only
is food-scrap-derived animal feed cheaper than
traditional feed,
342
but it is more sustainable as well.
One organization, Do Good Food, has recognized
the potential to sell animals raised on food scraps
animal feed to consumers, capitalizing on its status
as a more environmentally friendly product than
traditionally raised animals.
343
Composting, anaerobic digestion, and animal feed
processing infrastructure is costly. An anaerobic
digestion facility that processes around 50,000
tons of waste per year costs over $20 million to
construct.
344
Meanwhile, it costs $5-9 million to build
and $17-28 per ton to operate a large composting
facility.
345
One full-service composting facility
can process between 5,000 and 100,000 tons of
organic waste every year.
346
For reference, the City
of Madison, Wisconsin (a city of nearly 270,000)
estimates they produce at minimum 10,000 tons of
potentially compostable food scraps annually.
347
Sometimes, local governments (e.g., Madison,
WI) limit the amount of local organic waste they
collect for compost because they do not have the
infrastructure necessary to process it.
348
Building
composting facilities and infrastructure is critical to
ensure organic waste does not end up in landfills.
COMMUNITY COMPOST AND FOOD WASTE
REDUCTION PROJECT
In the 2018 Farm Bill, Congress authorized the
creation of the Community Compost and Food
Waste Reduction Project (CCFWR) within the
26
Opportunities to Reduce Food Waste in the2023 Farm Bill
USDA Oce of Urban Agriculture and Innovative
Production (UAIP) to provide pilot funding for
local governments in at least ten states to study
and pilot local compost and food waste reduction
plans.
349
A total of $25 million was authorized
to be appropriated to CCFWR, UAIP, and urban
agricultural grants.
350
While the specific amount
allocated to CCFWR projects per year may vary
within that total, in FY2020, $900,000 was available
for CCFWR projects, and each applicant could
request a maximum of $90,000 for a two-year
grant.
351
In FY2021, total CCFWR funding was $2
million, but the maximum request amount remained
at $90,000 per project.
352
CCFWR funding enables localities to enhance
their waste reduction capacities and has already
fostered a positive impact within communities.
353
Entities eligible to apply for the grant include city or
township governments, county governments, state-
designated or federally recognized Indian Tribes,
and special district governments.
354
The CCFWR
pilot projects may focus on several dierent areas,
including: waste management and permaculture
business development, local food waste, and
diversion (including transportation) of food waste
from landfills.
355
Examples of 2021 projects include
creating a network of food scrap drop-o stations,
developing and promoting community gardens,
building small-scale composting sites, testing
innovative models around household compost pick-
up, building composting infrastructure or funding
the full-operative of composting infrastructure, and
educating the public.
356
The first two years of CCFWR have proven its
grant model a success,
357
however, there is room
to improve the CCFWR grant model and scale its
benefits.
358
First, grant recipients reported that
the $90,000 funding cap is too low to fund large
projects in highly populated cities because the
grant does not provide enough money to scale a
project across the whole city.
359
As a result, CCFWR
projects in large cities only benefit a limited number
of people. CCFWR grants are also too small to fund
the development of new facilities or composting
systems or to develop long-term projects.
360
This
means that localities that do not already have
anaerobic digestion and composting infrastructure
gain limited benefit from CCFWR grants.
Second, the CCFWR grant only goes to local
governments, which limits the opportunity for
government ocials at the regional or state level to
use the funds for organic waste reduction projects.
This removes the possibility of scaling across a
region, which would increase the eciency of some
projects. Congress should expand the program
to authorize private partnerships (i.e. with non-
governmental organizations) to incentivize CCFWR
projects across regions and within communities with
resource-constrained local governments. Addressing
these problems within the CCFWR program would
help localities to scale and improve upon the
benefits that drive them to apply for the grant
funding in the first place.
Third, CCFWR recipients need to match at least 25%
of the federal grant through direct funding and/
or in-kind contributions.
361
Although a few cities
reported that the matching requirement was not
a burden given the in-kind contribution allowance,
at least one city had to divert direct funding to the
project.
362
Eliminating the matching requirement
would allow the grantees to receive the full grant in
direct funding.
Finally, previous CCFWR projects primarily focus
on composting. Future iterations of the CCFWR
program should also prioritize food waste
prevention and food recovery. Emphasizing food
waste prevention and recovery keeps food higher
in the Food Recovery Hierarchy. Congress should
instruct the USDA to provide better guidance
to communities seeking funding for food waste
reduction methods outside of composting.
OTHER FARM BILL PROGRAMS
Other federal programs help build anaerobic
digestion and composting capacity in rural areas
including the Solid Waste Management Grant
(SWMG) program
363
and the Water and Waste
Disposal Loan and Grant program.
364
In the 2018 Farm Bill, Congress reauthorized the
SWMG program under the Rural Development
Title.
365
Congress authorized up to $10 million
in annual appropriations to provide technical
assistance for solid waste management practices.
366
However, the Rural Utilities Service has consistently
allocated only about $4 million per year to SWMGs
since 2018.
367
The Rural Utilities Service intends
for these grants to fund technical assistance and
training on improving planning and management
at solid waste sites.
368
Although these grants need
not incorporate organic waste reduction strategies,
Opportunities to Reduce Food Waste in the2023 Farm Bill
27
some projects include organic waste reduction
plans.
369
The 2017 SWMG program awarded extra
points to applications that involved composting
projects that reduced organic waste in landfills.
370
In addition to SWMGs, states and localities can
also utilize the Water and Waste Disposal Loan and
Grant program, which primarily funds wastewater
systems, including those that derive energy from
food waste.
371
The program received a $1.45 billion
funding package for FY2021,
372
and oers applicants
low fixed-rate loans with payback periods of up to
40 years.
373
The CCFWR, SWMGs, and the Water and Waste
Disposal Loans and Grant program all provide
tailored funding opportunities to improve local food
waste reduction plans. However, there is still a lack
of sucient funding for the growing needs of food
waste diversion infrastructure. Building anaerobic
digestion and composting capabilities is a costly
process, but once constructed, these facilities keep
food waste from landfills and generate profound
long-term advantages for society.
According to ReFED, $14 billion in annual investment
is needed to revamp how the federal food system
prevents food from going to waste, recovers surplus
food, and recycles food scraps. ReFED projects that
around $1.2 billion of this needed investment should
come from government grants and project financing
in food waste recycling.
374
The federal government
is far away from meeting this need in food waste
recycling funding.
Several pending federal bills oer models for
increased investment. The COMPOST Act of 2021
375
would authorize a USDA grant and loan program to
fund composting infrastructure projects in states
and local governments.
376
This Act would authorize
$200 million per year for ten years for composting
infrastructure projects, with each project able to
obtain a grant or loan for up to $5 million.
377
The Zero Food Waste Act of 2021, mentioned
above, provides grant funding for “food waste
reduction projects,” which could include composting
infrastructure and anaerobic digestion projects
within the $650 million funding allocation.
378
Those
anaerobic digestion projects would be restricted
to ones in which the grantee guarantees that the
anaerobic digestion food waste by-product is
used as soil amendment that does not create an
environmental hazard, that the project will limit the
amount of animal waste used as anaerobic digestion
input, and that the project will use source-separated
organics.
379
IMPLEMENTATION OPPORTUNITY
The next farm bill should build on
existing grant programs and adopt
new strategies to develop composting
and anaerobic digestion infrastructure.
Congress should amend the CCFWR
program to increase the total and
per project funding available, reduce or eliminate
the matching requirement, and expand the list of
eligible entities who may apply for grant funding
to also include state governments, as well as non-
governmental organizations and community groups
that work with partners in rural locations or across
regions. For local projects, Congress should increase
the per project cap from $90,000 to $300,000 to
ensure all cities regardless of size can scale their
food waste reduction projects. For regional or state
projects, Congress should implement a project cap
of $500,000.
In addition, Congress should increase funding for
the SWMGs and the Water and Waste Disposal
Loans and Grant program and should continue
to prioritize projects in which the implementing
agencies prioritize food waste reduction. Congress
should consider extending the SWMG program to
two years for more robust projects.
Congress also should create funding streams
along the lines envisioned in the COMPOST Act
of 2021 and Zero Food Waste Act of 2021 to
support new compost and anaerobic digestion
infrastructure. Beyond funding the construction of
this infrastructure, Congress should also consider
expanding the COMPOST Act of 2021 and Zero
Food Waste Act of 2021 to include funding to
develop and maintain large-scale transportation
infrastructure necessary to haul compost from
these communities to the compost and anaerobic
digestion sites.
The next farm bill should enact these measures
under the Miscellaneous Title or a new Food Waste
Reduction Title.
28
Opportunities to Reduce Food Waste in the2023 Farm Bill
Require Federal Food
Procurement Contractors to
Measure, Recover, Recycle,
and Prevent Food Waste in
Federal Contracts ★
ISSUE OVERVIEW
The federal government can serve as a role model
for positive environmental practices. Every year, the
federal government purchases billions of dollars’
worth of food for school food programs, military
service members, veteran hospitals, incarcerated
persons, and other federal feeding programs.
380
Yet,
the federal government does not necessarily have
plans in place to address food waste generated by
federal procurement policies and contracts.
The federal government should use its contract
power to require government entities and their
contractors to measure and report food waste. The
Federal Food Donation Act of 2008 (Food Donation
Act of 2008) was passed to take a first step
towards reducing food waste among agencies.
The Food Donation Act of 2008 requires federal
procurement contracts of over $25,000 to include
specific language that encourages federal agencies
and contractors to donate safe, excess food to
food recovery organizations.
381
However, outside of
merely including the required language in contracts,
federal agencies and contractors are neither
required to donate excess wholesome food, nor are
they required to measure and report food waste, or
to ensure food that cannot be recovered is recycled
instead of thrown in the trash to be landfilled or
incinerated. The Council on Environmental Quality
(CEQ) already tracks and publishes several energy
eciency and sustainability data points reported to
the CEQ Oce of the Federal Chief Sustainability
Ocer by each federal agency’s sustainability
lead.
382
The CEQ could use this existing dashboard
to track and publish food waste and recovery data
generated by federal agencies.
Further, the Food Donation Act of 2008 does not
require any reporting on how much food is wasted
or donated, so there is little information about
how much food is wasted by federal agencies
and their contractors, or whether any agencies
or their contractors are making eorts to donate
surplus food. Congress should require agencies to
receive and compile reports from their contractors
regarding food excess and waste that results from
the food procurement agreement.
IMPLEMENTATION OPPORTUNITY
Congress should modify the Federal
Food Donation Act of 2008 to require
all federal agencies that enter food
procurement contracts to include
contract language requiring their
contractors to donate any surplus
food and to compost any inedible food scraps. They
should also require their contractors to measure and
report food donation and food waste that results
from the contract. Additionally, Congress should
designate responsibility to track and publicly report
federal food donation and waste to either CEQ,
another government agency (i.e., the USDA or the
EPA), or to the Federal Interagency Food Loss and
Waste Collaboration. Congress should implement
these changes as part of the Miscellaneous Title or a
dedicated Food Waste Reduction Title.
Support Compost End Markets
Through Crop Insurance
Benefits and Increased Federal
Procurement of Compost
Products
ISSUE OVERVIEW
Growing the compost market benefits entities
all along the food chain. In particular, creating
end markets for compost products will support
increased composting, and by giving compost
facilities a market to sell compost, the facilities
may be able to reduce their tipping fees and draw
more food waste generators to compost rather
than landfill their waste. In turn, this will make
composting a more viable and less expensive option
than throwing organic waste materials in a landfill.
Farmers can also benefit from compost end markets
as they can use the soil amendment products
derived from composting or anaerobic digestion
(compost products) to improve the quality of their
Opportunities to Reduce Food Waste in the2023 Farm Bill
29
soil.
383
The environmental benefits of compost stem
not only from diverting food waste from landfills,
but also from treating fields with compost, which
reduces or eliminates the need to use chemical
fertilizers, leads to higher agricultural yields,
increases soil water retention, and increases carbon
sequestration.
384
States and localities are investing in compost
and anaerobic digestion infrastructure to process
food waste.
385
These cities are also scaling their
compost and food waste collection eorts, which
will inevitably increase the total amount of compost
products created by compost and anaerobic
digestion processing facilities. Creating more end
markets for composting will also encourage the
development of more compost facilities. In order to
bolster these state and local eorts to realize the
social and environmental benefits of composting,
the federal government should support the
development of compost end markets.
Likely recognizing the benefits of supporting
compost end markets, President Biden’s Executive
Order 14057, published in December 2021, calls
on all federal agencies to support markets for
recycled products.
386
The USDA is also increasingly
recognizing the importance of developing and
incentivizing climate-smart farming practices. In
February 2022, the USDA announced the new
Partnerships for Climate-Smart Commodities, which
will provide funding for specified entities to develop
pilot projects likely to generate greenhouse gas
benefits and increase soil carbon sequestration.
387
The program announcement specifically lists adding
soil amendments (which includes compost) as a
qualifying practice.
388
The federal government can
use both its purchasing power and other means to
develop the private compost market. Most notably,
the federal government should incentivize farmers
to use compost products in their fields. This will
encourage farmers to reap the environmental
benefits associated with composting and will
increase the financial viability of the burgeoning
composting industry.
THE MODEL: PANDEMIC COVER CROP PROGRAM
During COVID-19, the federal government initiated
an incentive program that paid farmers a $5 per
acre premium under crop insurance for the planting
of cover crops.
389
This program, known as the
Pandemic Cover Crop Program (PCCP), ran for the
2021 planting year and helped producers realize
more profits from their land.
390
The PCCP allows
farmers to realize the considerable environmental
benefits associated with cover crops. These benefits
include: decreasing the breakdown of soil,
391
which
increases soil organic matter and helps plant
growth;
392
storing nutrients from manure and other
on-farm inputs until the following years’ crop
can utilize them; reducing nitrogen losses to the
environment; and reducing the use of purchased
nitrogen fertilizer that is produced using fossil fuels
and lower costs of production.
393
Compost use has similar plant health and
environmental benefits. It can be used on annual
crops, perennials, orchards, vineyards, and
grasslands to improve soil properties, provide
nutrients in a stable organic form, and increase plant
growth and health.
394
Further, compost increases
water retention capability and improves drought
resilience.
395
Compost can also be used to increase
carbon sequestration (i.e., long-term storage of
carbon in soils and vegetation).
396
In fact, studies
and literature reviews by the Marin Carbon Project
and its partners found that a one-time application
of a quarter inch of compost can double the soil’s
carbon sequestration potential (approximately one
ton of carbon per hectare).
397
Finally, given rising
fertilizer costs,
398
compost may be a cost-eective
alternative to fertilizer.
The federal government should use PCCP as a
model for an incentive program that encourages
farmers to apply compost products to their fields.
FEDERAL ACQUISITION REGULATION
Congress should require federal agencies to
purchase compost made from recycled organic
waste materials for any of their landscaping
services. Following a number of executive orders
aimed at supporting sustainable products and
services, including President Clinton’s Executive
Order 12873 in 1993
399
and President Bush’s
Executive Order 13423 in 2007,
400
the Oce of
Management and Budget modified the Federal
Acquisition Regulation (FAR) to be more
environmentally friendly. The FAR requires federal
agencies to ensure that 95% of all products and
services purchased are energy and water ecient,
bio-based, environmentally preferable, non-ozone
depleting, or made with recovered materials.
401
However, the FAR does not specifically mention
30
Opportunities to Reduce Food Waste in the2023 Farm Bill
or suggest purchasing compost made from
recycled organic waste materials. Instead, it has
selection criteria including selecting products that
lower environmental impacts and reduce waste
management costs, among other things.
402
Given
the aforementioned environmental benefits and
waste management cost reductions associated with
composting, Congress or the Administration should
direct the FAR Council to revise the FAR to require
federal purchasers to procure compost made from
recycled organic waste materials when procuring
landscaping services.
Congress has used the federal government’s
purchasing power to set standards around
environmental issues in other areas. For example,
the Department of Defense is legally required to
give preference to electric and hybrid vehicles
when purchasing or leasing vehicles.
403
The
Energy Policy Act requires new federal fleets to
meet certain alternative fuel vehicle and electric
vehicle requirements.
404
Using federal government
purchasing power to stimulate demand and to
encourage private market uptake of sustainable
technology is a demonstrated, successful model
of setting environmental policy. Congress
should implement this model, using the federal
government’s purchasing power to develop private
markets to stimulate composting product markets.
IMPLEMENTATION OPPORTUNITY
To increase viability for compost
products, Congress should create a
crop insurance premium incentive
program that pays farmers a per acre
bonus for applying compost products
to their fields before planting.
Congress also should increase federal procurement
of compost products containing recycled organic
waste materials, by requiring federal agencies
to prioritize purchasing of compost made from
recycled organic waste materials when purchasing
landscaping services. Congress should establish this
program in the Farm Bill’s Crop Insurance Title.
Encourage Diversion of Food
Waste into Animal Feed
Where Appropriate ★
ISSUE OVERVIEW
Food scrap feeding refers to feeding livestock
animals food scraps or food residuals, which can
include edible by-products of food production. Food
scraps are most often sourced from restaurants,
retail, and institutions such as schools.
405
Food scrap feeding is regulated under federal
law and requires animal-derived food scraps to
be heat-treated (but not necessarily vegetable-
derived food scraps) in addition to a number of
storage and transport requirements.
406
Food scrap
feeding is also regulated at the state level, often
with stricter requirements such as outright bans
of feeding of animal-derived and/or vegetable
waste to certain animals, or requirements that one
or both types of waste be heat-treated.
407
When
done in accordance with the federal laws, food
scrap feeding is safe for animals, and it realizes
all the same environmental benefits associated
with diverting food waste from landfills. Numerous
studies demonstrate that properly heat-treated
food scraps are safe for animals that consume feed
derived from those scraps, and for consumers who
eat those animals.
408
Food scrap-derived animal
feed is a more environmentally friendly option
than conventional feed when comparing a range
of environmental factors, including climate change
potential, emissions of carcinogens and toxins, and
particulate matter emissions.
409
Private companies are increasingly recognizing
their ability to divert food to animal food scraps.
For example, the company Do Good Foods partners
with grocery stores to recover food first for
donation to food banks, and any left-over food is
processed into animal feed for chickens.
410
Another
company in this space, FeedBack Earth, collects
postconsumer food scraps from entities such as
restaurants and cafeterias and converts them into
animal feed for livestock.
411
To build on the increased interest in diversion of
food scraps to animal feed, Congress should require
the USDA to write guidance encouraging states
Opportunities to Reduce Food Waste in the2023 Farm Bill
31
to update their laws around animal scrap feeding
to the federal laws outlined below. Furthermore,
Congress should create a tax incentive for private
businesses to divert food waste to animal feed to
make that pathway more economically viable than
sending the scraps to the landfill. It is essential that
Congress makes this tax incentive smaller than the
enhanced tax deduction for businesses to donate
surplus food for human consumption, to best
align with the highest use on the Food Recovery
Hierarchy.
SWINE HEALTH PROTECTION ACT AND OTHER
RELEVANT LAWS
The Swine Health Protection Act (SHPA), the
federal legislation governing food scrap feeding to
swine, sets a food scrap feeding regulation floor
that can stand on its own or can be exceeded by
more stringent state-level regulations.
412
SHPA
and its implementing regulations, overseen by the
USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service,
demand food scrap treatment facilities to comply
with a number of storage, transport, licensing,
recordkeeping, and treatment requirements.
413
SHPA essentially gives states the option of whether
to allow food scrap feeding and gives states the
option to seek primary enforcement responsibility
under the Act
414
or to work with the Secretary
of Agriculture to oversee regulations such as
permitting within the state.
415
However, despite
the demonstrated environmental benefits and food
safety assurances, two states forbid any food scrap
feeding and fifteen states forbid animal-derived
food scrap feeding.
416
It is also important to note
that a few state laws exist that govern the feeding
of food scraps to other animals such as poultry and
cattle.
417
Congress can take a more active role in
encouraging and incentivizing innovative food waste
recycling strategies including the diversion of food
scraps to animal feed.
In addition to SHPA, the FDA’s “Current Good
Manufacturing Practice, Hazard Analysis, and Risk-
Based Preventive Controls for Food for Animals”
regulation, authorized under the Food Safety
Modernization Act,
418
regulates facilities that use
animal byproducts as animal feed and includes
a requirement to develop a plan that identifies
potential hazards and implements controls around
those hazards.
419
The FDA also works with the
Association of American Feed Control Ocials
(AAFCO) to standardize animal feed ingredients and
labeling requirements.
420
The FDA also prohibits the use of mammalian
protein (i.e., animal tissue) in feeds for
ruminant animals under its Bovine Spongiform
Encephalopathy (BSE)/Ruminant Feed Ban Rule.
421
This ban covers all “ruminants,” meaning animals
that have a stomach with four chambers through
which feed passes during digestion, such as cattle,
sheep, goats, deer, elk, and antelopes, among
others (swine and fowl are not ruminants).
422
The
regulations apply to any “protein derived from
mammalian tissue.”
423
The ban specifically lays out
the types of products that can and cannot be fed to
particular types of ruminants.
424
IMPLEMENTATION OPPORTUNITY
To maximize the potential for food
scraps diversion to animal feed,
Congress should require the USDA to
write guidance encouraging states to
update their laws around food scrap
feeding to animals. This guidance
should provide clear recommendations on ways to
streamline state-level laws and explain why states
should remove any unnecessary restrictions that
do not exist within the federal-level animal feed
laws. Congress should also create a tax incentive for
private businesses to divert food waste to animal
feed that is lesser than the enhanced tax deduction
for businesses to donate surplus food to food-
insecure individuals in order to ensure food goes to
its most beneficial use. Congress should implement
these changes as part of the Miscellaneous Title or a
dedicated Food Waste Reduction Title.
32
Opportunities to Reduce Food Waste in the2023 Farm Bill
Increase Funding for the
USDA Food Loss and Waste
Reduction Liaison and Create
a Broader Research Mandate
ISSUE OVERVIEW
In the 2018 Farm Bill, Congress formally established
a Food Loss and Waste Reduction Liaison (the
Liaison) within the USDA.
425
The creation of the
Liaison is a welcome step towards addressing food
loss and waste at the federal level. Establishing a
central coordinating position brings harmony to
food loss prevention eorts, provides technical
assistance across dierent agencies, and designates
an oce tasked with leading essential research.
The Liaison coordinates food loss and waste
measurement and reduction eorts across all levels
of government and with private businesses and
nongovernmental organizations.
426
The Liaison’s
duties include: coordinating food waste reduction
eorts between the USDA, the EPA, and the FDA;
reinforcing and promoting federal programs to
measure and reduce food waste; supporting and
providing information to organizations engaged in
food loss prevention and recovery; raising awareness
on the liability protections available to food donors;
and recommending innovative ways to recover food
and reduce food waste.
427
The Liaison’s broad research mandate under the
2018 Farm Bill authorizes the Liaison to conduct
comprehensive national research that identifies and
quantifies sources of food waste.
428
The 2018 Farm
Bill calls for the Liaison to evaluate and determine
dierent aspects of food waste, such as how waste
is measured, what factors contribute to waste, and
what the current cost and volume of food loss is.
429
To carry out these duties, the Liaison is authorized
to enter into agreements with universities and non-
governmental organizations (NGOs).
430
Following
a study on food waste,
431
the Liaison is required
to produce a report detailing the findings and
analyzing the impact of food waste reduction eorts
conducted by the USDA.
432
LIMITED RESOURCES
Even though the Liaison was authorized to perform
a number of duties in the food loss and waste space,
the position lacks adequate funding to carry out
those duties. The position was authorized in the
2018 Farm Bill, and received $400,000 in funding
the following year.
433
The Liaison most recently
received $500,000 in appropriations for FY2021,
434
however, this funding is insucient to support more
than one full-time position and to engage in the
range of tasks Congress envisioned for the Liaison.
Given the scale of the challenge of United States
food waste and the range of opportunities, a Food
Loss and Waste Oce with multiple sta members
would be better equipped to address the challenges.
This would mean increased funding for additional
sta and for internal and external research and
pilot projects. This increased funding will enable
the Liaison or Oce to coordinate initiatives more
eectively within government oces and between
all levels of government and private institutions.
Increased funding could also be used to create a
network for the Liaison to coordinate with regional
hubs, as the types of food waste and the barriers to
food recovery vary across regions. Congress could
model this new regional research component on
the National Food Waste Reduction Act of 2021.
435
This Act would create a Food Waste Research
Program within the Liaison oce that establishes a
partnership with 5 regional partner institutions.
436
In
FOOD WASTE REDUCTION
COORDINATION
Opportunities to Reduce Food Waste in the2023 Farm Bill
33
partnership with the Liaison, these regional partner
institutions will plan, conduct, and arrange for public
research, data, education, and recommendations
pertaining to food waste reduction and food
recovery issues, locally, regionally, and nationwide.
437
INSUFFICIENT RESEARCH
In addition to its critical role in acting as a point of
contact across agencies and between government
and private actors, the Liaison could play an
important part in increasing federally funded food
loss and waste research. Data and research on
food waste are critical because they can inform
how federal grants should be awarded and provide
insight on areas that future policymaking should
prioritize. Currently, research focused on supply
chain food loss and waste is lacking. Two areas
where more research is needed are on farm food
loss and waste (estimated 17 million tons of waste
per year) and household food loss and waste
(estimated 30 million tons of waste per year).
438
The USDA Economic Research Service (ERS) has
sporadically researched supply chain food loss but
does not update this research consistently. In 1997,
the ERS conducted a preliminary food loss study
and estimated loss at every stage of the supply
chain based on available data and expert input from
the 1970s.
439
Likely due to the fact 2018 Farm Bill
does not specify food waste as an ERS research
priority and the ERS’ prioritization of other research
topics, the ERS has not conducted comprehensive
follow-up studies or published new reports.
440
Federally-funded research fails to address several
key issues. For example, existing research does not
adequately quantify on-farm food waste. Farmers
and other food producers often do not measure
unsaleable produce since they are not required to
publicly report on these losses. Moreover, since it is
expensive to visit farms and track the data regularly,
studies on food waste either do not engage on-farm
food waste or refer to older data. By researching
methods to measure farm losses, the federal
government could provide the data necessary
to identify tailored solutions to on-farm food
waste. Further, no government entity consistently
researches and reports on supply-chain food loss.
The upcoming farm bill should provide explicit
funding for comprehensive food waste research.
This funding could be directed toward the Food
Loss and Waste Liaison or Food Loss and Waste
Oce, potentially in conjunction with ERS. The
funding should support comprehensive research
on the amount of food wasted with a focus on on-
farm food waste and supply chain ineciencies
accounting for the most loss and waste.
IMPLEMENTATION OPPORTUNITY
Congress should increase the funding
and authorize a Food Loss and Waste
Oce. Congress also should dedicate
funding for comprehensive national
and farm-level food waste research.
Congress should implement these
changes under the Miscellaneous Title or within a
dedicated Food Waste Reduction Title.
Provide Funding for the
Federal Interagency Food Loss
and Waste Collaboration ★
ISSUE OVERVIEW
Acknowledging the role that the federal government
should play in reducing food loss and waste, in
2018 the FDA, the USDA, and the EPA launched an
interagency task force now known as the Federal
Interagency Food Loss and Waste Collaboration
(the Collaboration).
441
The Collaboration committed
to working towards the goal of reducing food loss
and waste by 50% by 2030.
442
In support of this
goal, in 2019, the Collaboration published a national
food waste reduction strategy.
443
The strategy
identifies six priority areas: enhancing interagency
coordination; increasing consumer education;
improving guidance on food loss and waste
measurement; improving guidance on food safety,
date labels, and food donations; collaborating with
private industry; and encouraging intra-government
food waste reduction.
444
The Collaboration periodically reports through
its website on various projects the Collaboration
conducts to reduce food waste.
445
For example, in
line with the first objective to increase interagency
coordination, the Collaboration created the
Interagency Working Group.
446
In pursuit of the
second objective to increase consumer education,
34
Opportunities to Reduce Food Waste in the2023 Farm Bill
the agencies increased their social media presence,
developed informational websites, hosted webinars,
and developed other educational materials related
to food waste.
447
In pursuit of the fifth objective
to collaborate with private industry, the task force
solicited assistance from industry leaders and other
stakeholders to combat food waste across the
supply chain.
448
While it has taken successful steps and is a positive
development, the Collaboration should be given
funding and a mandate to expand its membership
and continue to scale its work. Congress should also
require the Collaboration to create a national plan
to meet the national goal to halve food waste by
2030. As part of this plan, the Collaboration should
establish food waste reduction timelines, metrics,
and benchmarks to track the government’s progress
in reaching the national goal. This can also help food
businesses chart progress and develop their own
plans to support achievement of the national goal.
In addition to enshrining the Collaboration in
law, Congress should require a broader set of
federal agencies to engage in the Collaboration,
as many other agencies play a role in the food
system through food safety enforcement, food
procurement, and food distribution, and could
improve their impact on food waste reduction and
food recovery. This could include agencies such
as the Department of Defense, the Department
of Transportation, the Department of Homeland
Security, the Department of Education, and the
General Services Administration, among others.
Congress can further require the Collaboration
to create an external advisory committee to
provide needed input on programming and policy
issues. By establishing an advisory committee,
the Collaboration will be in a better position to
understand existing and future challenges facing
food waste, to acquire the latest data regarding
food loss and waste, and to stay on top of innovative
solutions from leading experts. Participating
stakeholders should represent a diverse array of
perspectives, from the private sector to farmers to
non-profit organizations, including businesses and
food recovery organizations of varying sizes.
IMPLEMENTATION OPPORTUNITY
Congress should authorize the
existence of the Collaboration by
creating an explicit mandate for
the Collaboration in the 2023 Farm
Bill. In addition, Congress should
authorize $2 million in annual
funding for the Collaboration to better position
it to meet the United States’ 2030 food waste
reduction goal.
449
To ensure this investment is well-
spent, Congress should require the Collaboration
to deliver regular reports to Congress on its
progress towards achieving the national food waste
reduction goal. These provisions can be included
in the Miscellaneous Title or in a new Food Waste
Reduction Title.
Establish New Positions
for Regional Supply Chain
Coordinators at the USDA ★
Real-time donation coordination has the
annual potential to divert 144,000 tons
of food waste, recover 239 million meals,
reduce 552,000 metric tons of CO
2
e,
and save 30.8 billion gallons of water,
producing a net financial benefit of $595
million
450
ISSUE OVERVIEW
The food supply chain in America is extremely
vulnerable to shocks. As the COVID-19 pandemic
demonstrated, small disruptions in manufacturing
can quickly lead to empty shelves and high food
prices.
451
These disruptions disproportionately
harm low-income individuals who have little room
for flexibility in their food budgets.
452
COVID-19
highlighted the already-present need for changes
that make the food supply chain more resilient.
Numerous factors during transit, such as breaks in
refrigeration, vibrations from the road, and shipping
delays, aect the freshness of food.
453
When these
supply chain factors change a food product’s shelf
life, manufacturers and other entities transporting
Opportunities to Reduce Food Waste in the2023 Farm Bill
35
food between two locations might find that the
most aordable and reasonable option for their
food product is to donate it. However, a lack of
real-time food supply data makes it dicult for
manufacturers and drivers to connect their would-
be food donations with food recovery organizations.
This logistical gap in the food donation supply chain
calls for regional point persons who can connect
entities that sporadically have food to donate with
food recovery organizations within the given region.
In addition to facilitating food donation within
regions, regional supply chain coordinators could
facilitate more systemic research and planning
around addressing recurring regional supply chain
problems. The coordinators could connect with
stakeholders including producers, distributors,
manufacturers, local and state ocials, and other
agency leaders to address supply chain barriers
to food waste reduction. Further, the coordinators
could work with food recovery organizations to
identify willing recipients for rescued food and
connect them with donors. When implementing
their mandate, the coordinators could collaborate
with the Rural Development state and regional
oces. Having regional coordinators could help
with planning during normal times to ensure more
resilience and coordination during local, regional, or
national disasters.
IMPLEMENTATION OPPORTUNITY
The next farm bill should establish
regional supply chain coordinators
within the USDA that partner with
food producers, distributors, and food
recovery organizations and act as
regional points of contact to facilitate
real-time food recovery as well as understand and
develop the capacity needed for ongoing food
recovery. Authority and funding for these regional
supply chain coordinators should be established
within the Miscellaneous Title, or a new Food Waste
Reduction Title.
36
Opportunities to Reduce Food Waste in the2023 Farm Bill
Appendix A
U.S. Food Loss & Waste Policy Action Plan Recommendations
and Additional Report Recommendations
The U.S. Food Loss & Waste Policy Action Plan for Congress & the Administration, discussed on page 3 of this
report, was published in 2021 by the Harvard Law School Food Law & Policy Clinic (FLPC), NRDC (Natural
Resources Defense Council), ReFED, World Wildlife Fund (WWF), along with many additional supporters. The
Action Plan calls upon Congress and the Biden administration to take ambitious action to achieve the goal of
cutting United States food loss and waste in half by 2030. It recommends five key policy recommendations
ranging from investing in infrastructure and programs that measure and prevent food waste to requiring a
national date labeling standard. This report pulls in several key recommendations from the Action Plan that
fall within the legislative purview of the farm bill, and includes additional recommendations that are specific
the farm bill. The recommendations in this report that are also included in the Action Plan are listed below,
followed by the additional recommendations outlined in the report.
Policy Recommendations Included in the U.S. Food Loss & Waste Policy Action Plan
1. Standardize and clarify date labels
2. Launch a national food waste education and awareness campaign
3. Strengthen and clarify the Bill Emerson Good Samaritan Food Donation Act
4. Expand federal tax incentives for food donations
5. Provide grants to support proven state and local policies that reduce food waste disposed in landfills
or incinerators
6. Provide grants and loans for the development of organic waste processing infrastructure
7. Require federal food procurement contractors to measure, recover, recycle, and prevent organic
waste in federal contracts
8. Encourage diversion of food waste into animal feed where appropriate
9. Provide funding for the Federal Interagency Food Loss and Waste Collaboration
10. Establish new positions for regional supply chain coordinators at the USDA
Additional Report Recommendations
1. Provide funding to K-12 schools to incorporate food waste prevention practices in their programs
2. Promote food education and food waste education in K-12 programming
3. Utilize existing federal household-level food education programs to increase food waste awareness
4. Provide grant funding for new technologies to reduce food spoilage and food waste
5. Implement a certification program for businesses that demonstrate food waste reduction
6. Provide financial incentives to businesses for the adoption of technologies that reduce food waste by
at least 10%
7. Increase funding support for food recovery infrastructure and for post-harvest food recovery
8. Oer grant resources and procurement programs to increase food recovery from farms
9. Encourage USDA grant and loan recipients to donate surplus food by incentivizing food donation
10. Instruct the USDA Risk Management Agency and approved crop insurance providers to better
support gleaning
11. Support compost end markets through crop insurance benefits and increased federal procurement of
compost products
12. Increase funding for the USDA Food Loss and Waste Reduction Liaison and create a broader research
mandate
Opportunities to Reduce Food Waste in the2023 Farm Bill
37
Appendix B
Table of Recommendations and Implementation Opportunities
by Title
Commodity
Programs Title
Instruct the USDA RMA to initiate an expanded education and awareness program by developing more
guidance materials and utilizing semi-annual reminders for NAP
Nutrition Title
Provide dedicated grants for schools to conduct food waste audits and implement waste reduction
programming
Mandate Oer-Versus-Serve (OVS) policies to be implemented across all schools for both NSLP and SBP
Modify existing school grant program selection processes to preference applicants that have a food waste
reduction or food donation program
Reauthorize and modify the FASLP program’s authorizing language to direct USDA to award extra points on
grant applications to schools that include food waste reduction education as a focus in their program
Reauthorize and increase funding for the Farm to School grant program
Add language about food waste education in the program goals of the SNAP Education (SNAP-Ed) program
Establish a new block grant to states that funds food recovery and distribution infrastructure
Support post-harvest food recovery by increasing funding for the Community Food Projects (CFP) grant
program and earmarking a portion of funding for food recovery projects
Reauthorize and expand the TEFAP Farm to Food Bank Project and reduce or remove the state match
requirement
Designate funding for a tailored surplus food purchase and donation program modeled from the Farmers to
Families Food Box Program with upgrades to address equity and ensure the program is reducing rather than
furthering food waste
Direct the USDA to prioritize, across a range of grant programs, applicants that have a food donation
contract in place with a food recovery organization
Research,
Extension
and Related
Matters Title
Renew support for the Expanded Food and Nutrition Education Program (EFNEP) and modify the authorizing
language to include food waste prevention education
Increase funding for the Specialty Crop Research Initiative (SCRI) and direct USDA to preference projects
that target food waste reduction
Create a new program (similar to SCRI) that supports new technologies to extend the shelf life of dairy, meat,
poultry, and fish and the development and manufacturing of upcycled food products
Horticulture
Title
Increase funding for the Local Agricultural Marketing Program (LAMP) and remove or reduce the matching
requirement
Extend Value-Added Producer Grant (VAPG) funding to non-profits, and earmark a portion of funding for
food waste reduction and food recovery
Direct the USDA to prioritize grant applicants that have a food donation contract with a food recovery
organization across a range of farm bill grant programs such as LAMP
38
Opportunities to Reduce Food Waste in the2023 Farm Bill
Crop Insurance
Title
Instruct the USDA RMA to initiate an education and awareness program on the benefits and protections for
gleaning, by developing more guidance materials and utilizing semi-annual reminders for FCIP
Create a crop insurance premium incentive program that oers farmers a per acre bonus for applying
compost products to their fields before planting
Increase federal procurement of compost products containing recycled organic waste materials by requiring
federal agencies to prioritize purchasing of compost made from recycled organic waste materials when
purchasing landscaping services
Miscellaneous
Title/Food
Waste
Reduction Title
Launch a national food waste education and awareness campaign
Implement a food waste reduction certification program to encourage businesses to prevent or otherwise
reduce food waste
Strengthen and clarify the Bill Emerson Good Samaritan Food Donation Act and require USDA to publish
regulations better explaining its provisions
Provide grants to state and local governments to encourage the implementation of proven or promising food
waste reduction policies such as organic waste bans, mandatory recycling laws, landfill taxes, PAYT laws, and
other policy measures
Reauthorize and amend the Community Compost and Food Waste Reduction (CCFWR) program to increase
the total and per-project funding available, reduce or eliminate the matching requirement, and expand the list
of eligible entities who may apply for grant funding to also include state governments and non-governmental
organizations and community groups that work with partners in rural locations across regions
Increase funding for the Solid Waste Management Grant (SWMG) and the Water and Waste Disposal Loans
and Grant program and continue to prioritize projects in which the implementing agencies prioritize food
waste reduction
Authorize funding to support new compost and anaerobic digestion infrastructure, and support large-scale
transportation needs for compost and anaerobic digestion
Modify the Federal Food Donation Act of 2008 to require all federal agencies that enter food procurement
contracts to require their contractors to donate any surplus food and to compost any inedible food scraps,
and require such contractors to measure and report food donation and food waste that result from the
contract, and require agencies to report this data to a central federal government authority
Require the USDA to write guidance encouraging states to update their laws around food scrap feeding to
animals
Increase funding for the Food Loss and Waste Liaison and authorize creation of a Food Loss and Waste Oce
Provide funding for comprehensive national and farm-level food waste research
Provide a mandate for the Federal Food Loss and Waste Collaboration and authorize $2 million in annual
funding for the Collaboration to better position it to meet the United States’ 2030 food waste reduction goal
Establish regional supply chain coordinators within the USDA that partner with food producers, distributors,
and food recovery organizations and act as regional points of contact to facilitate real-time food recovery as
well as understand and develop the capacity needed for ongoing food recovery
Tax and Trade
Provisions Title
(If reestablished
from the 2008
Farm Bill)
Create a federal tax incentive for the commercial adoption of post-harvest food waste reduction technologies
that reduce food waste by at least 10%
Create an alternative food donation tax credit that farmers can opt to claim instead of the enhanced tax
deduction for food donation
Amend the enhanced tax deduction for food donation to oset the costs of transportation and storage
Amend the enhanced tax deduction for food donation to incentivize innovative food recovery models by
removing the requirement that non-profit organizations provide donated food for free
Create a tax incentive for private businesses to divert food waste to animal feed that is lesser than the
enhanced tax deduction for businesses to donate surplus food to food insecure individuals
Opportunities to Reduce Food Waste in the2023 Farm Bill
39
40
Opportunities to Reduce Food Waste in the2023 Farm Bill
Appendix C
Table of Pending Federal Legislation
Report
Section
Report
Recommendation
Bill Name Bill
Number
Date
Introduced
Cosponsors Summary
Food Waste
Prevention
Standardize and
Clarify Date Labels
Food Date
Labeling Act
of 2021
H.R. 6167,
S.3324 117
th
Congress
12/7/2021
House: Rep.
Pingree, Rep.
Newhouse, Rep.
Blumenauer,
Rep. Lieu, Rep.
Kuster, Rep.
McGovern
Senate: Sen.
Blumenthal
To establish
requirements for
quality and discard
dates that are, at
the option of food
labelers, included in
food packaging, and
for other purposes.
Provide Funding
to K-12 Schools to
Incorporate Food
Waste Prevention
Practices in Their
Programs
School Food
Recovery Act
of 2021
H.R.
5459, 117
th
Congress
9/30/2021
Rep. Pingree,
Rep. Newhouse,
Rep. Bonamici,
Rep. Hayes,
Rep. McGovern,
Rep. Case, Rep.
Schrier, Rep.
Bishop, Rep.
Carbajal, Rep.
Ruiz
To amend the Richard
B. Russell National
School Lunch Act to
require the Secretary
of Agriculture to
carry out a grant
program to make
grants to eligible
local educational
agencies to carry out
food waste reduction
programs, and for
other purposes.
Surplus Food
Recovery
Expand Federal Tax
Incentives
Further
Incentivizing
Nutritious
Donations of
Food Act or
FIND Food
Act of 2022
H.R.
7317, 117
th
Congress
3/31/2022
Rep. Brown,
Rep. Pingree,
Rep. Keller, Rep.
Balderson
To amend the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986
to incentivize
food donation
through tax credits
and deductions, and
for other purposes.
Strengthen and Clarify
the Bill Emerson
Good Samaritan Food
Donation Act
Food
Donation
Improvement
Act of 2021
H.R. 6251,
S.3281, 117
th
Congress
12/13/2021,
11/30/2021
House: Rep.
McGovern, Rep.
Newhouse, Rep.
Pingree, Rep.
Walorski, Rep.
Keller, Rep.
Reschenthaler,
Rep. Wild, Rep.
Brown, Rep.
Hayes
Senate: Sen.
Blumenthal,
Sen. Toomey,
Sen. Braun
To amend the Bill
Emerson Good
Samaritan Food
Donation Act to
clarify and expand
food donation, and
for other purposes.
Oer Grant Resources
and Procurement
Programs to Increase
Food Recovery from
Farms
Fresh
Produce
Procurement
Reform Act
of 2021
H.R.
5309, 117
th
Congress
9/21/2021
Rep. DeLauro,
Rep. McGovern,
Rep. Bishop,
Rep. Valadao,
Rep. Adams,
Rep. Evans
To direct the
Secretary of
Agriculture to enter
into contracts to
provide individuals
dealing with food and
nutrition insecurity
family-friendly fresh
produce, and for
other purposes.
Opportunities to Reduce Food Waste in the2023 Farm Bill
41
Food Waste
Recycling
Provide Grants
and Loans for the
Development of
Organic Waste
Processing
Infrastructure
Cultivating
Organic
Matter
through the
Promotion of
Sustainable
Techniques
or COMPOST
Act of 2021
H.R. 4443,
S.2388, 117
th
Congress
7/16/2021,
7/20/2021
House: Rep.
Brownley, Rep.
Pingree, Rep.
Kuster, Del.
Norton, Rep.
Cicilline, Rep.
Bonamici, Rep.
Cleaver, Rep.
Levin, Rep.
Blumenauer,
Rep. Hayes,
Rep. Raskin,
Rep.
Spanberger,
Rep.
Krishnamoorthi,
Rep. Newman,
Rep. Neguse,
Rep. Houlahan,
Rep. Courtney,
Rep. Jayapal,
Rep. Payne
Senate: Sen.
Booker, Sen.
Smith
To require the
designation of
composting as a
conservation practice
and activity, and to
provide grants and
loan guarantees for
composting facilities
and programs, and for
other purposes.
Provide Grants to
Support Proven State
and Local Policies that
Reduce Food Waste
Disposed in Landfills
or Incinerators
Zero Food
Waste Act
H.R. 4444,
S.2389, 117
th
Congress
7/16/2021,
7/20/2021
House: Rep.
Brownley, Rep.
Pingree, Rep.
Kuster, Del.
Norton, Rep.
Cleaver, Rep.
Levin, Rep.
Pocan, Rep.
Blumenauer,
Rep. Hayes,
Rep. Raskin,
Rep. Payne
Senate: Sen.
Booker, Sen.
Smith
To provide grants to
reduce the amount of
food waste, and for
other purposes.
Food Waste
Reduction
Coordination
Increase Funding for
the USDA Food Loss
and Waste Reduction
Liaison and Create
a Broader Research
Mandate
National
Food Waste
Reduction
Act of 2021
H.R.
3652, 117
th
Congress
6/1/2021
Rep. Axne, Rep.
Pingree
To direct the
Secretary of
Agriculture to
establish a food
waste research and
technical assistance
program and grant
program, and for
other purposes.
of 2021
42
Opportunities to Reduce Food Waste in the2023 Farm Bill
Endnotes
1
The Challenge, rEFEd, https://ReFED.com/food-waste/the-challenge [https://perma.cc/XF6C-K2AK].
2
ReFED Insights Engine: Food Waste Monitor, rEFEd, https://insights-engine.ReFED.org/food-waste-monitor?break_
by=sector&indicator=tons-surplus&view=detail&year=2019 [https://perma.cc/3XJ2-X9E4].
3
Id.
4
New Data from ReFED Reveals Amount of Food Waste Has Leveled O after Increasing 11.9% Since 2010, rEFEd (Feb. 2, 2021),
https://ReFED.com/articles/new-data-from-ReFED-reveals-amount-of-food-waste-has-leveled-o-after-increasing-11-9-since-2010/
[https://perma.cc/42Y9-NAMJ].
5
EPA and USDA Join Private Sector, Charitable Organizations to Set Nation’s First Food Waste Reduction Goals, u.s. Env’t prot.
agEncy (Epa) (Sept. 16, 2015), https://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usda/usdamediafb?contentid=2015/09/0257.xml&printable=true
[https://perma.cc/9S67-GMBL].
6
Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018, Pub. L. No: 115-334
.
7
Emily Broad lEiB Et al., harv. l. sch. Food l. & pol’y clinic (Flpc), opportunitiEs to rEducE Food WastE in thE 2018 Farm Bill (2017),
https://chlpi.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Opportunities-to-Reduce-Food-Waste-in-the-2018-Farm-Bill_May-2017.pdf [https://
perma.cc/9LE3-7GT8].
8
Adam Redling, Bipartisan Caucus Seeks to Address Food Waste, WastE today mag. (May 7, 2018), https://www.wastetodaymagazine.
com/article/congress-food-waste-caucus-pingree-young/ [https://perma.cc/WS5S-ZDJ3].
9
Epa oFF. oF rEs. consErvation & rEcovEry, documEntation For grEEnhousE gas Emission and EnErgy Factors usEd in thE WastE rEduction
modEl (Warm): organic matErials chaptErs, icF (2020), https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2020-12/documents/warm_
organic_materials_v15_10-29-2020.pdf [https://perma.cc/RZD4-2ZH9].
10
Catherine I. Birney et al., An assessment of individual foodprints attributed to diets and food waste in the United States, Env’t rsch.
lEttErs 12 (Oct. 17, 2017), https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aa8494 [https://perma.cc/CH9C-4KSP].
11
Greenhouse Gas Equivalencies Calculator, Epa (Mar. 2021), https://www.epa.gov/energy/greenhouse-gas-equivalencies-calculator
[https://perma.cc/PKB5-YLXJ].
12
These numbers were modeled in the ReFED Roadmap and represent the annual impact of reshaping consumer environments to
prevent food waste. rEFEd, roadmap to 2030: rEducing u.s. Food WastE By 50% and thE rEFEd insights EnginE at-a-glancE (2021),
https://ReFED.com/uploads/ReFED_roadmap2030-FINAL.pdf [https://perma.cc/MX53-4AY3] [hereinafter rEFEd roadmap to 2030
at-a-glancE].
13
ReFED Insights Engine, rEFEd, https://insights.ReFED.org/ (last visited Mar. 3, 2022) [https://perma.cc/Q2Z8-JCS7].
14
These numbers were modeled in the ReFED Roadmap and represent the annual impact of strengthening food recovery. rEFEd,
roadmap to 2030: rEducing u.s. Food WastE By 50% and thE rEFEd insights EnginE at-a-glancE, supra note 12.
15
Id.; rEFEd insights EnginE, supra note 13.
16
BSR, analysis oF u.s. Food WastE among Food manuFacturErs, rEtailErs, and rEstaurants, Food WastE rEduction all. 17, 24, 32 (2014),
https://foodwastealliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/FWRA_BSR_Tier3_FINAL.pdf [https://perma.cc/9EDB-Z2T9].
17
Bill Emerson Good Samaritan Food Donation Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1791 [hereinafter Emerson Act].
18
Epa oFF. oF rEvEnuE, consErvation & rEc., 2018 WastEd Food rEport: EstimatEs oF gEnEration and managEmEnt oF WastEd Food in thE unitEd
statEs in 2018, Epa 19 (2020), https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2020-11/documents/2018_wasted_food_report.pdf [https://
perma.cc/SQ4J-NXVZ].
19
EPA, advancing sustainaBlE matErials managEmEnt: 2018 Fact shEEt-assEssing trEnds in matErials gEnEration and managEmEnt in thE unitEd
statEs (2020), https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2021-01/documents/2018__fact_sheet_dec_2020_fnl_508.pdf [https://
perma.cc/6STD-WPML] [hereinafter advancing sustainaBlE matErials managEmEnt].
20
rEFEd, roadmap to 2030: rEducing u.s. Food WastE By 50% and thE rEFEd insights EnginE at-a-glancE, supra note 12.
21
These numbers were modeled in the ReFED Roadmap and represent the annual impact of recycling any remaining food waste. Id.
22
advancing sustainaBlE matErials managEmEnt, supra note 19.
23
See James Thompson & Rob Watson, Time is Running Out: The U.S. Landfill Capacity Crisis, WastEadvantagE mag. (May 13, 2018),
https://wasteadvantagemag.com/time-is-running-out-the-u-s-landfill-capacity-crisis/ [https://perma.cc/CX2D-KMTU].
24
Greenhouse Gases, EPA (last visited Oct. 10, 2021), https://www.epa.gov/report-environment/greenhouse-gases [https://perma.cc/
QT4K-EGE7].
25
Flpc, nrdc (nat. rEs. dEF. council), rEFEd, World WildliFE Fund (WWF), us Food loss and WastE policy action plan For congrEss
& thE administration 7 (2021), https://cdn.sanity.io/files/34qvzoil/production/b235a5e697650c15ea6c9d4b76cf5f49553a5f74.pdf
[https://perma.cc/QVK2-37VD] [hereinafter us Food loss and WastE action plan].
26
Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018, 7 U.S.C. § 6923 (d) (2018) [hereinafter Agriculture Improvement Act].
27
USDA Announces First-Ever Recipients of Urban Agriculture Grants and Cooperative Agreements, u.s. dEp’t oF agric. (usda) (Aug.
25, 2020), https://www.usda.gov/media/press-releases/2020/08/25/usda-announces-first-ever-recipients-urban-agriculture-
grants-and [https://perma.cc/4MUZ-A6JA] [hereinafter USDA Announces First-Ever Recipients].
28
See Agriculture Improvement Act, supra note 26 at § 6924.
29
The Liaison received $500k in appropriations for FY2021. See Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020, H.R. 133 § 776 (2020).
30
Epa, u.s. Food & drug admin. (Fda), usda, Formal Agreement Among The United States Environmental Protection Agency and
The United States Food and Drug Administration and The United States Department of Agriculture Relative to Cooperation and
Coordination on Food Loss and Waste (Oct. 18, 2018), https://www.usda.gov/sites/default/files/documents/usda-fda-epa-formal-
agreement.pdf [https://perma.cc/X3HV-XXH6] [hereinafter Formal Agreement Among EPA, FDA, and USDA]; Winning on Reducing
Food Waste and Federal Interagency Strategy, Epa, https://www.epa.gov/sustainable-management-food/winning-reducing-food-
waste-federal-interagency-strategy [https://perma.cc/J9LT-AU72] [hereinafter Winning on Reducing Food Waste].
31
us Food loss and WastE action plan, supra note 25.
32
The Challenge, supra note 1.
33
ReFED Insights Engine: Food Waste Monitor, supra note 2.
34
Id.
35
On the Road to Reduction, rEFEd (Apr. 17, 2017), https://ReFED.com/articles/on-the-road-to-reduction/ [https://perma.cc/PGC4-
Opportunities to Reduce Food Waste in the2023 Farm Bill
43
DQF3].
36
darBy hoovEr & yvEttE caBrEra, Food WastE policy gap analysis and invEntory: midatlantic, southEast, and grEat lakEs rEgions,
nrdc, Flpc, & ctr. For EcotEchnology (cEt) (Aug. 3, 2021), https://www.nrdc.org/resources/food-waste-policy-gap-analysis-and-
inventory-midatlantic-southeast-and-great-lakes-regions [https://perma.cc/XN79-FFNL].
37
alisha colEman-JEnsEn Et al., housEhold Food sEcurity in thE unitEd statEs in 2019, usda Econ. rsch. sErv. (Ers) 4 (2020), https://
www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/publications/99282/err-275.pdf?v=6197.5 [https://perma.cc/DZ2H-ZBM5]; alisha colEman-JEnsEn Et al.,
housEhold Food sEcurity in thE unitEd statEs in 2020, usda Ers 4 (2021), https://www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/publications/102076/
err-298.pdf?v=4259.6 [https://perma.cc/SJ95-ZQYV].
38
kirstEn Jaglo Et al., From Farm to kitchEn: thE EnvironmEntal impacts oF u.s. Food WastE, Epa oFF. oF rsch. & dEv. 15 (2021), https://
www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2021-11/from-farm-to-kitchen-the-environmental-impacts-of-u.s.-food-waste_508-tagged.
pdf [https://perma.cc/QM9V-GW6F].
39
United States 2030 Food Loss and Waste Reduction Goal, EPA, https://www.epa.gov/sustainable-management-food/united-states-
2030-food-loss-and-waste-reduction-goal (last visited Mar. 10, 2022) [https://perma.cc/DC3S-S2UV]; USDA and EPA Join with
Private Sector, Charitable Organizations to Set Nation’s First Food Waste Reduction Goals, usda (Sept. 16, 2015), https://www.usda.
gov/wps/portal/usda/usdamediafb?contentid=2015/09/0257.xml&printable=true [https://perma.cc/C3SM-6UMN].
40
Formal Agreement Among EPA, FDA, and USDA, supra note 30.
41
Federal Interagency Food Loss and Waste Collaboration, Epa, https://www.epa.gov/sustainable-management-food/federal-
interagency-food-loss-and-waste-collaboration [https://perma.cc/G7U7-ULQ9]; Winning on Reducing Food Waste, supra note 30.
42
What are Cities Doing About Food Waste?, rts (Feb. 5, 2020), https://www.rts.com/blog/what-are-cities-doing-about-food-waste/
[https://perma.cc/LMU8-7EX2].
43
Managing and Transforming Waste Streams—A Tool for Communities—Zero Waste Case Study: San Francisco, Epa, https://www.epa.
gov/transforming-waste-tool/zero-waste-case-study-san-francisco (last visited Nov. 5, 2020) [https://perma.cc/RH2R-FM2Z].
44
See Emily Broad lEiB & katiE sandson Et al., Flpc & cEt, Bans and BEyond: dEsigning and implEmEnting organic WastE Bans and mandatory
organics rEcycling laWs (2019), https://www.chlpi.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Organic-Waste-Bans_FINAL-compressed.pdf
[https://perma.cc/DPT9-VGRX] [hereinafter Bans and BEyond]; d.c. codE § 8-1031.01–8-1031.03.
45
Jennifer Schultz, Fighting Food Waste, 25 nat’l conFErEncE oF statE lEgs. 46 (Dec. 2017), https://www.ncsl.org/research/agriculture-
and-rural-development/fighting-food-waste.aspx [https://perma.cc/46R2-DUGR].
46
Kelly Maile, Organic waste legislative update, WastE today mag. (Mar. 23, 2020), https://www.wastetodaymagazine.com/article/
organic-waste-legislative-update-food/ [https://perma.cc/H7GM-5EP8]; Connecticut, Massachusetts, New York, Rhode Island, New
Jersey, and Vermont adopted state organic waste bans, and California enacted a waste recycling law that requires commercial
waste generators to compost or anaerobically digest their organic waste. See, conn. gEn. stat. ann. § 22a-226e (2017); 310 mass.
codE rEgs. 19.017 (2017); n.y.c. admin codE § 16-306.1 (2016); r.i. gEn. laWs § 23-18.9-17 (2017); n.J. stat. ann. § 13:1E-99.123 (West
2020); vt. stat. ann. tit. 10, § 6605k (2017); cal. puB. rEs. codE § 42649.81 (2017).
47
Organic Waste Legislative Update, supra note 46.
48
New Data from ReFED Reveals Amount of Food Waste Has Leveled O After Increasing 11.9% Since 2010, rEFEd (Feb. 2, 2021),
https://refed.com/articles/new-data-from-refed-reveals-amount-of-food-waste-has-leveled-o-after-increasing-11-9-since-2010/
[https://perma.cc/7SSE-QPAB].
49
Id.
50
Agriculture Improvement Act, supra note 26
.
51
Sustainable Management of Food: Food Recovery Hierarchy, Epa, https://www.epa.gov/sustainable-management-food/food-
recovery-hierarchy (last visited Nov 5, 2021) [https://perma.cc/KP7M-BT4B].
52
us Food loss and WastE action plan, supra note 25.
53
Id.
54
ReFED Insights Engine Solutions Database: Standardized Date Labels, rEFEd, https://insights-engine.refed.org/solution-database/
standardized-date-labels (last visited Feb. 19, 2022) [https://perma.cc/2CQ4-5DG4].
55
Emily Broad lEiB & dana gundErs Et al., Flpc & nrdc, thE dating gamE: hoW conFusing Food laBEls lEad to Food WastE in amErica 17
(2013), http://www.chlpi.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/dating-game-report.pdf [https://perma.cc/V9RZ-889M] [hereinafter
FLPC & NRDC, thE dating gamE]; E. rsch. grp, currEnt statE oF Food product opEn datEs in thE u.s., FDA 1–13 (2003), https://www.
foodrisk.org/resources/display/32 [https://perma.cc/A3AA-6QUB].
56
The date labeling of infant formula is regulated under 21 CFR 107.20(c). See Fda ctr. For Food saFEty & appliEd nutrition, contains
nonBinding rEcommEndations laBEling oF inFant Formula: guidancE For industry, u.s. dEp’t oF hEalth & human sErvs. (Sep. 2016), https://
www.fda.gov/files/food/published/Guidance-for-Industry--Labeling-of-Infant-Formula-PDF.pdf [https://perma.cc/W9X7-C2EW].
57
21 U.S.C. §§ 331(b), 343, 463(a), 607(c), 1043.
58
Press Release: USDA Revises Guidance on Date Labeling to Reduce Food Waste, usda Food saFEty & inspEction sErv. (Fsis), (Dec.
14, 2016), https://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/portal/fsis/ newsroom/news-releases-statements-transcripts/news-release-archives-by-
year/archive/2016/nr-121416-01 (last visited Mar. 11, 2022); FSIS, Food Product Dating, usda, https://www.fsis.usda.gov/food-safety/
safe-food-handling-and-preparation/food-safety-basics/food-product-dating (last visited Mar. 11, 2022).
59
Frank Yiannas, Letter to the Food Industry, Fda (May 23, 2019), https://www.fda.gov/media/125114/download [https://perma.cc/
KRN8-MP8P].
60
Emily Broad lEiB Et al., Flpc & nrdc, don’t WastE, donatE: Enhancing Food donations through FEdEral policy 19 (2017), http://www.
chlpi.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Dont-Waste-Donate_-March-2017.pdf [https://perma.cc/E9AT-VXP7].
61
See, e.g., ReFED U.S. Food Waste Policy Finder: Massachusetts Food Waste Policy, rEFEd (Jan. 8, 2022), https://www.refed.com/
tools/food-waste-policy-finder/massachusetts/ [https://perma.cc/P62F-YMRY]; FLPC & NRDC, thE dating gamE, supra note 55.
62
Id.; Harvey L. Hensel, Look What Consumerism Has Done Now, 29 Food drug cosmEtic L. J. 220, 226 (1974).
63
Emily Broad lEiB Et. al., Flpc, datE laBEls: thE casE For FEdEral lEgislation 6 (2019), https://www.chlpi.org/wp-content/
uploads/2013/12/date-labels-issue-brief_June-2019.pdf [https://perma.cc/4M8X-5WP5].
64
rEFEd datE laBEling standardization tool, rEFEd 1 (2016), https://refed.org/downloads/ReFED-Standardization-Package.pdf
[https://perma.cc/7AM6-MUBF].
65
ReFED Insights Engine Solutions Database: Standardized Date Labels, supra note 54.
66
Product Code Dating, FMI—thE Food indus. assoc., https://www.fmi.org/industry-topics/labeling/product-code-dating (last visited
44
Opportunities to Reduce Food Waste in the2023 Farm Bill
Nov. 15, 2021) [https://perma.cc/X858-JKC6]; Grocery Industry Launches New Initiative to Reduce Consumer Confusion on Date
Labels, consumEr Brands assoc. (Feb. 2017), https://consumerbrandsassociation.org/posts/grocery-industry-launches-new-initiative-
to-reduce-consumer-confusion-on-product-date-labels/ [https://perma.cc/26Q2-A52Z].
67
consumEr Brands assoc., BEst iF clEarly laBElEd 1 (2018), https://consumerbrandsassociation.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/
ConsumerBrands_ClearlyLabeled.pdf [https://perma.cc/CQV6-4X2Z].
68
usda, Food product dating, Docket No. FSIS-GD-2016-0014, (2016).
69
Letter to the Food Industry, supra note 59.
70
Emily Broad lEiB Et al., Flpc, nat’l consumErs lEaguE, & Johns hopkins u., consumEr pErcEptions oF datE laBEls: national survEy (2016),
http://www.chlpi.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Consumer-Perceptions-on-Date-Labels_May-2016.pdf [https://perma.cc/W7Y5-
MCY5].
71
Food & agric. org. oF thE u.n. (Fao) & World hEalth org. (Who), codEx alimEntarius intErnational Food standards: gEnEral
standard For thE laBElling oF prEpackagEd Foods, CXS 1-1985 (Rev. 2018), http://www.fao.org/fao-who-codexalimentarius/
sh-proxy/en/?lnk=1&url=https%253A%252F%252Fworkspace.fao.org%252Fsites%252Fcodex%252FStandards%252FCXS%
2B1-1985%252FCXS_001e.pdf [https://perma.cc/X3RP-5P5T]; see also JosEph BEckmann Et al, Flpc, thE gloBal Food donation
policy atlas issuE BriEF promoting Food donation: datE laBEling laW and policy (2021), https://www.foodbanking.org/wp-content/
uploads/2021/11/atlas-date-labeling-issue-brief.pdf [https://perma.cc/585F-XWVX].
72
Eur. comm’n Et al., Food rEdistriBution in thE Eu: mapping and analysis oF Existing rEgulatory and policy mEasurEs impacting Food rEdistriBution
From Eu mEmBEr statEs (2020), https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/8f5d3481-b753-11ea-bb7a-01aa75ed71a1
(last visited Jan. 16, 2022).
73
Flpc & nrdc, thE dating gamE, supra note 55.
74
The Food Date Labeling Act of 2021, introduced in the 116th Congress, oers a model for the needed changes. Food Date Labeling
Act, S. 3324, 117th Cong., (1st Sess. 2021); Food Date Labeling Act, H.R. 6167, S. 3324, 117th Cong., (1st Sess. 2021) [hereinafter Food
Date Labeling Act of 2021].
75
The 2002 Farm Bill made Country of Origin Labeling (COOL) mandatory for products including fresh fruits and vegetables, beef,
pork, lamb, seafood, and peanuts (P.L. 107–171, § 10816). COOL regulations for fish and shellfish became eective in 2005, while, for
other commodities, the rule did not go into eect until 2009. Exact regulations continue to change—the most recent amendment
occurred in January 2017—and remain controversial, but have been included in subsequent farm bills.
In 2002 and 2014, COOL
was included in the Miscellaneous Title; in 2008, it was located within the Livestock Title. See
Country
of
Origin
Labeling
(COOL)
,
usda mktg. sErv., https://www.ams.usda.gov/rules-regulations/cool (last visited Mar. 11, 2022) [https://perma.
cc/8Z8P-DCB9];
JoEl l. grEEnE, country-oF-origin laBEling For Foods and thE Wto tradE disputE on mEat laBEling, cong. rEs.
sErv.
(2015), https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RS22955.pdf [https://perma.cc/VJ89-UPFM].
76
Food Date Labeling Act of 2021, supra note 74.
77
ReFed Insights Engine Solutions Database: Consumer Education Campaigns, rEFEd, https://insights-engine.refed.org/solution-
database/consumer-education-campaigns (last visited Mar. 11, 2022) [https://perma.cc/F8HW-AU6K].
78
ReFED Insights Engine: Food Waste Monitor, supra note 2.
79
nat’l acad. oF sciEncEs, Eng’g, & mEd. (nasEm), a national stratEgy to rEducE Food WastE at thE consumEr lEvEl 37 (Barbara O.
Schneeman and Maria Oria eds., 2020) [hereinafter NASEM, national stratEgy to rEducE Food WastE].
80
Roni A. Ne, Marie L. Spiker & Patricia L. Truant, Wasted Food: U.S. Consumers’ Reported Awareness, Attitudes, and Behaviors, 10.6
plos onE (June 10, 2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0127881 [https://perma.cc/V2PM-Y4JW] [hereinafter Ne et al.,
Wasted Food].
81
nasEm, national stratEgy to rEducE Food WastE, supra note 79 at 48.
82
Yang Yu & Edward C. Jaenicke, Estimating Food Waste as Household Production Ineciency, 102 am. J. oF agric. Econ. (Jan. 23,
2020), https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/ajae.12036 [https://perma.cc/3HJA-5SGX].
83
Id.
84
ReFed Insights Engine Solutions Database: Consumer Education Campaigns, supra note 77.
85
Impact of First Federally Funded Anti-Smoking Ad Campaign Remains Strong After Three Years, ctr. For disEasE control &
prEvEntion (cdc) (Mar. 4, 2016), http://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2016/p0324-anti-smoking.html [https://perma.cc/RLB3-
9CEX].
86
craig hanson & pEtEr mitchEll, thE BusinEss casE For rEducing Food loss and WastE, champions 12.3 7-8 (Mar. 2017), https://
champions123.org/sites/default/files/2020-08/business-case-for-reducing-food-loss-and-waste.pdf [https://perma.cc/PA5B-
BKDT].
87
Id.
88
WastE rEs. action prog. (Wrap), courtauld commitmEnt 2025 milEstonE progrEss rEport 4 (2020), https://wrap.org.uk/sites/default/
files/2020-08/Courtauld-Commitment-2025-Milestone-Progress-Report.pdf (last visited Mar. 11, 2022).
89
Let’s Save the Food, WastE FrEE kitchEn handBook & nrdc (2016), http://www.savethefood.com [https://perma.cc/JC3Y-FCZN]; See
also Dana Gunders, Save the Food, nrdc (Apr. 21, 2016), https://www.nrdc.org/experts/dana-gunders/save-food [https://perma.cc/
J55F-GQ64].
90
dana gundErs, nrdc, WastEd: hoW amErica is losing up to 40 pErcEnt oF its Food From Farm to Fork to landFill 6 (2nd ed. 2017),
https://www.nrdc.org/sites/default/files/wasted-2017-report.pdf [https://perma.cc/3B29-KBZR] [hereinafter gundErs, WastEd].
91
yErina mugica & tErra rosE Et al., nrdc, tackling Food WastE in citiEs: a policy and program toolkit 32 (2019), https://www.nrdc.org/
sites/default/files/food-waste-cities-policy-toolkit-report.pdf [https://perma.cc/WLN4-QXE6] [hereinafter nrdc, tackling Food
WastE in citiEs].
92
Case: Love Food, Hate Waste, u.n. Env’t prog. (unEp) 1 (2016), https://www.oneearthweb.org/uploads/2/1/3/3/21333498/love_
food_hate_waste_case.pdf [https://perma.cc/5U6R-ZZ4J].
93
nasEm, national stratEgy to rEducE Food WastE, supra note 79 at 140.
94
Citizen Behaviour Change, WRAP, https://wrap.org.uk/taking-action/citizen-behaviour-change/love-food-hate-waste (last visited
Oct. 10, 2021).
95
Food Waste: Less is More, dEnvEr: thE milE high city, https://www.denvergov.org/Government/Agencies-Departments-Oces/
Agencies-Departments-Oces-Directory/Public-Health-Environment/Community-Behavioral-Health/Food-System-Policies/Food-
Waste-Less-is-More (last visited Feb 6, 2022) [https://perma.cc/ZZV8-DFEW].
Opportunities to Reduce Food Waste in the2023 Farm Bill
45
96
Food: Too Good to Waste Implementation Guide and Toolkit, EPA, https://www.epa.gov/sustainable-management-food/food-too-
good-waste-implementation-guide-and-toolkit (last visited Feb. 6, 2022) [https://perma.cc/H57Q-6C24].
97
Id.
98
ReFED Insights Engine: Solutions Database: K-12 Lunch Improvements, rEFEd, https://insights-engine.refed.org/solution-database/
k-12-lunch-improvements (last visited Feb. 19, 2022) [https://perma.cc/Q4LS-TPTN].
99
WWF, Food WastE Warriors: a dEEp divE into Food WastE in us schools 22 (2019), https://c402277.ssl.cf1.rackcdn.com/
publications/1271/files/original/FoodWasteWarriorR_CS_121819.pdf?1576689275 [https://perma.cc/V2G4-WRLP] [hereinafter WWF,
Food WastE Warriors].
100
See National School Lunch Program (NSLP) Fact Sheet, usda Food & nutrition sErv. (Mar. 20, 2019), https://www.fns.usda.gov/nslp/
nslp-fact-sheet [https://perma.cc/JRK7-P9BL] [hereinafter NSLP Fact Sheet]; see also WWF, Food WastE Warriors, supra note 99 at
4.
101
See generally, id.
102
Id. at 9.
103
Id. at 10.
104
The WWF report extrapolates the number from 46 sample schools. Id.
105
Matteo Boschini et al., Why the waste? A large-scale study on the causes of food waste at school canteens, 246 J. oF clEanEr air
prod. 2 (2020).
106
Schools: Reducing Food Waste at K012 Schools, USDA, https://www.usda.gov/foodlossandwaste/schools (last visited Apr. 20, 2022)
[https://perma.cc/27HD-M743] [hereinafter Reducing Food Waste at K-12 Schools]; See USDA, EPA, u. oF ark, guidE to conducting
studEnt Food WastE audits: a rEsourcE For schools (2017), https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2017-12/documents/guide_to_
conducting_student_food_waste_audit_-_nov_20_2017.pdf [https://perma.cc/LJ2J-R426].
107
WWF, Food WastE Warriors, supra note 99 at 9.
108
Id.
109
School Food Recovery Act, H.R. 5459, 117th Cong. (2021).
110
A survey conducted by the Harvard School of Public Health and NPR found that 14% of parents report that their children
receive less than 15 minutes to eat their lunch. The USDA encourages schools to increase lunchtime to 30 minutes to improve
“dietary intake and reduce food waste.” See thE mktg. inst., rEducing Food WastE in schools: thE BusinEss casE, WWF 1 (2019),
https://files.worldwildlife.org/wwfcmsprod/files/Publication/file/8k9ldd2tdx_FoodWasteWarrior_BusCase_121119.pdf?_
ga=2.127647173.957544864.1634142315-1035761673.1610483385 [https://perma.cc/R86K-2U5Q]; harv. sch. oF puB. hEalth, nat’l puB.
radio (npr), roBErt Wood Johnson Found. survEy, Education and hEalth in schools: a survEy oF parEnts summary 10 (2013), https://
media.npr.org/documents/2013/dec/rwjf_npr_harvard_edpoll.pdf [https://perma.cc/A94Z-WBXR]; Reducing Food Waste at K-12
Schools, supra note 106.
111
Schools can promote the use of “share tables” where students can return food and drink items that are still whole and/or unopened
for other students to take and eat. For example, if a student takes an apple, but before biting into it decides they do not want it,
rather than throw the apple away they can place it on a share table for another student to take. These share tables address both
the issues of food waste and food insecurity as K-12 schools that receive funding from NSLP have high poverty rates and many
students may not have access to sucient food outside of these meals. Providing students with additional food through share
tables may help get these children closer to meeting their nutrition needs. See Reducing Food Waste at K-12 Schools, supra note
106.
112
Schools can work with students to improve school meals. Students complain that school meals are unpalatable, and while there
are limitations on what changes can be made to the oered school meals, receiving input from students may help providers better
cater to students’ preferences. This can help provide schools with lunches that will get eaten rather than go to waste. One way to
do this is through School Lunch Advisory Councils (SLACs). A few schools, including Park High School in Livingston, MT, and public
schools in Brockton, MA, already implemented SLACs and may serve as models. Initiatives by the SLAC at Park High School led to
a 35% decrease in overall lunch waste. See Stacy Blondin et al., ‘It’s just so much waste.’ A Qualitative Investigation of Food Waste
in a Universal Free School Breakfast Program, 18(9) puB. hEalth nutrition 1565 (2014); Alicia White, Students Get Involved in School
Lunch though School Lunch Advisory Councils, usda (Feb. 21, 2017), https://www.usda.gov/media/blog/2016/09/22/students-
get-involved-school-lunch-through-school-lunch-advisory-councils [https://perma.cc/M3EX-QFDD]; Youth Advisory Committees,
Brockton puB. sch., https://www.bpsma.org/schools/school-lunch-program/youth-advisory-committees (last visited Oct. 12, 2021)
[https://perma.cc/9DM7-GA7B].
113
7 C.F.R. § 210.10(e) (2017).
114
See 7 C.F.R. § 210.1 et seq.; see also NSLP Fact Sheet, supra note 100; see also School Breakfast Program, usda Food & nutrition
sErv., http://www.fns.usda.gov/sbp/school-breakfast-program-sbp (last visited Mar. 31, 2022) [https://perma.cc/QR2C-YC5B].
115
See 7 C.F.R. §§ 210.10, 220.8.
116
Id. at § 210.10(c).
117
Id. at § 210.10(e).
118
See Telephone interview with Kathleen Dietrich, Founder and Executive Director, Food Bus (Apr. 5, 2016); see also USDA Sets
the Record Straight on Proposed Meal Flexibilities, usda Food & nutrition sErv., https://www.fns.usda.gov/news-item/notice-
stakeholders-usda-sets-record-straight-proposed-school-meals-flexibilities (last visited Apr. 10, 2021) [https://perma.cc/C7JJ-
5F6Z]. School meal reimbursement requirements are detailed in 7 C.F.R. § 210.10.
119
Child Nutrition Programs: Flexibilities for Milk, Whole Grains, and Sodium Requirements, 83 Fed. Reg. 63775 (Feb. 11, 2019) (to be
codified at C.F.R. pt. 201, 215, 220 226).
120
Be a Food Waste Warrior, WWF, https://www.worldwildlife.org/teaching-resources/toolkits/be-a-food-waste-warrior (last visited
Nov. 1, 2021) [https://perma.cc/4NM2-55P3].
121
WWF, Food WastE Warriors, supra note 99 at 22.
122
NSLP Equipment Assistance Grants, usda Food & nutrition sErv. (May 25, 2018), https://www.fns.usda.gov/nslp-equipment-
assistance-grants [https://perma.cc/7KEA-UAQG].
123
Community Food Systems: The Farm to School Grant Program, usda (Oct. 22, 2021), https://www.fns.usda.gov/cfs/farm-school-
grant-program [https://perma.cc/PK5K-Q4QM].
124
ReFED Insights Engine: Solutions Database: K-12 Lunch Improvements, supra note 98.
46
Opportunities to Reduce Food Waste in the2023 Farm Bill
125
Agricultural Act of 2014, 7 U.S.C. § 7633.
126
WWF, rEducing Food WastE in schools, supra note 110 at 3.
127
Barry Percy-Smith & Danny Burns, Exploring the role of children and young people as agents of change in sustainable community
development, 13 thE int’l J. oF Just. & sustainaBility 323 (2021).
128
See Adam Vaughan, Failure to Teach Cooking at School ‘Contributing to £12bn a Year Food Waste,’ guardian (July 13, 2016), https://
www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/jul/13/failure-teach-cooking-at-school-contributing-food-waste [https://perma.cc/AX2N-
KWWL].
129
WWF, rEducing Food WastE in schools, supra note 110.
130
Id. at 3.
131
Id.
132
New USDA Data Show Growing Farm to School Eorts Help to Reduce Plate Waste, Increase Student Participation in Healthier
School Meals Programs, USDA Food & nutrition sErv. (Oct. 20, 2015), https://www.fns.usda.gov/pressrelease/2015/029215 [https://
perma.cc/7YNJ-JF5C] [hereinafter New USDA Data Showing Growing Farm to School Eorts].
133
usda Food & nutrition sErv., cultivating opportunity: an ovErviEW oF usda’s Fiscal yEar 2015 and 2016 Farm to school grantEEs’
groWing achiEvEmEnts 7 (2018), https://fns-prod.azureedge.net/sites/default/files/f2s/USDA_GranteeReport_O.pdf [https://perma.
cc/PWL5-TBDM].
134
Id.
135
New USDA Data Showing Growing Farm to School Eorts, supra note 132.
136
Healthy, Hunger Free Kids Act of 2010, P.L. No. 111-296 (2010).
137
Lana Bandoim, The Shocking Amount of Food U.S. Households Waste Every Year, ForBEs (Jan. 26, 2020), https://www.forbes.com/
sites/lanabandoim/2020/01/26/the-shocking-amount-of-food-us-households-waste-every-year/?sh=3ef7089a7dc8 (last visited
Mar. 12, 2022); see also Chuck Gill, The Average American Household Wastes $1,866 of Food Per Year, Futurity (Jan. 23, 2020),
https://www.futurity.org/food-waste-united-states-sustainability-consumers/ [https://perma.cc/3TTW-MF4P].
138
Food Security of U.S. Households 2020, usda Econ. rsch. sErv. (Sept. 8, 2021), https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/food-nutrition-
assistance/food-security-in-the-us/key-statistics-graphics.aspx [https://perma.cc/XU9C-VS6P].
139
nasEm, national stratEgy to rEducE Food WastE, supra note 79 at 37.
140
See generally, usda Food & nutrition sErv., Fy 2022 supplEmEntal nutrition assistancE program Education (snap-Ed) plan guidancE:
nutrition Education and oBEsity prEvEntion program (2021), https://snaped.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/documents/FY%20
2022%20SNAP-Ed%20Plan%20Guidance.pdf [https://perma.cc/UP5L-DHDZ] [hereinafter snap-Ed plan guidancE].
141
Agriculture Improvement Act, supra note 26 at
§ 3175(c).
142
Id.
143
See usda nat’l inst. oF Food & agric. (niFa), ExpandEd Food and nutrition Education program (EFnEp) Fy 2021 rEquEst For
applications (2020), https://nifa.usda.gov/sites/default/files/resources/FY2021-Expanded-Food-and-Nutrition-Education-Program-
EFNEP-RFA-508-Modified.pdf [https://perma.cc/UL77-L8XP].
144
Id.
145
About EFNEP, usda niFa, https://nifa.usda.gov/program/about-efnep (last visited Apr. 24, 2021) [perma.cc/3AKM-ZWHF].
146
SNAP-Eligible Households, FEEding am., https://hungerandhealth.feedingamerica.org/explore-our-work/programs-target-
populations/snap-eligible-households/ (last visited Oct. 10, 2021) [https://perma.cc/98LT-2WKL].
147
snap-Ed plan guidancE, supra note 140 at 5.
148
See SNAP-Ed Final Allocations, usda snap-Ed connEction, https://snaped.fns.usda.gov/program-administration/funding-
allocations (last visited May 12, 2021) [https://perma.cc/US74-FWXT].
149
snap-Ed plan guidancE, supra note 140 at 9.
150
The Dating Game–Your Guide to Preventing Food Waste: Part 1, snap4ct Blog (Apr. 27, 2020), https://www.snap4ct.org/snap4ct-
blog/your-guide-to-preventing-food-waste-part-1 [https://perma.cc/3RVP-D5DZ] [hereinafter The Dating Game–Your Guide to
Preventing Food Waste]; Managing Seasonal Abundance to Avoid Food Waste, and Feed Your Family Well, mE. snap-Ed Blog
(Jun. 24, 2020), https://www.mainesnap-ed.org/blog/managing-seasonal-abundance-to-avoid-food-waste-and-feed-your-family-
well/ [https://perma.cc/KU66-Q8B6] [hereinafter Managing Seasonal Abundance].
151
The Dating Game–Your Guide to Preventing Food Waste, supra note 150; Managing Seasonal Abundance, supra note 150.
152
Agricultural Act of 2014, supra note 125 at § 9001.
153
Meal Planning, Shopping, and Budgeting, usda Food & nutrition sErv., https://snaped.fns.usda.gov/nutrition-education/nutrition-
education-materials/meal-planning-shopping-and-budgeting (last visited Oct. 10, 2021) [https://perma.cc/9E49-B8LW].
154
Surveyed consumers report that saving money is one of the most important motivations for reducing food waste in their
households. As a result, framing food waste reduction in terms of better budgeting may be eective. Ne et al., Wasted Food,
supra note 80.
155
The Challenge, supra note 1.
156
It’s Fresh! As nature extended, it’s FrEsh!, https://itsfresh.com (last visited Nov. 18, 2021) [https://perma.cc/BXC3-CEJH].
157
What We Do, BluWrap, https://www.bluwrap.me (last visited Nov. 18, 2021) [https://perma.cc/9K3J-MNH7].
158
Apeel: This Is FOOD GONE GOOD, apEEl, https://www.apeel.com (last visited Nov. 18, 2021) [https://perma.cc/46SM-JCMG].
159
rEFEd, a roadmap to rEducE u.s. Food WastE By 20 pErcEnt 37 (2016), https://refed.org/downloads/ReFED_Report_2016.pdf
[https://perma.cc/7643-HCA7].
160
ReFED Insights Engine Solutions Database: Active & Intelligent Packaging, rEFEd, https://insights-engine.refed.org/solution-
database/active-intelligent-packaging (last visited Jan. 23, 2021) [https://perma.cc/RW6V-LW4C].
161
About Upcycled Food, upcyclEd Food assoc., https://www.upcycledfood.org/upcycled-food (last visited March 14, 2022) [https://
perma.cc/JKL3-W7RN].
162
ReFED Insights Engine Solutions Database: Manufacturing Byproduct Utilization (upcycling), rEFEd, https://insights-engine.refed.
org/solution-database/manufacturing-byproduct-utilization-upcycling (last visited March 11, 2022) [https://perma.cc/N2EW-625V].
163
In selecting grant recipients, the USDA should give priority to small companies that have not received significant venture capital
funding. These companies likely require more federal funding to create the desired technology than those with significant outside,
private funding.
164
usda niFa, spEcialty crop rEsEarch initiativE: Fy 2017 rEquEst For prE-application (rFpa) 5 (2017), https://nifa.usda.gov/sites/
Opportunities to Reduce Food Waste in the2023 Farm Bill
47
default/files/rfa/FY%202017%20SCRI%20RFPA.pdf [https://perma.cc/JB4S-MVNC] [hereinafter spEcialty crop rEsEarch initiativE
application]; The Editors of Encyclopedia Britannica, Land-Grant Universities: American education, Britannica, https://www.
britannica.com/topic/land-grant-university (last visited Dec. 15, 2021) [https://perma.cc/FQL4-AUNN] [hereinafter Land-Grant
Universities].
165
spEcialty crop rEsEarch initiativE application, supra note 164; Land-Grant Universities, supra note 164.
166
Specialty Crops Research Initiative (SCRI), usda niFa, https://nifa.usda.gov/funding-opportunity/specialty-crop-research-initiative-
scri (last visited Nov. 18, 2021) [https://perma.cc/6Z3T-CWP9].
167
Id.
168
Id.
169
7 U.S.C. § 7632(B)(iii).
170
Current Research Information System (CRIS), usda niFa, https://cris.nifa.usda.gov/search.html (last visited Mar. 12, 2022) [https://
perma.cc/GR69-LDKB].
171
Janet Ranganathan, Animal-based Foods are More Resource-Intensive than Plant-Based Foods, World rEs. inst. (Apr. 2016), http://
www.wri.org/resources/charts-graphs/animal-based-foods-are-more-resource-intensive-plant-based-foods [https://perma.cc/
LX9D-8XZ5].
172
See 7 U.S.C. § 6294a; see also ENERGY STAR Products: 20 Years of Helping America Save Energy Save Money and Protect the
Environment, EnErgy star, Epa, & u.s. dEp’t oF EnErgy 5–6 (2012), https://www.energystar.gov/about/pub_catalog/energy-star-
products-20-years-of-helping-america-save-energy-save-money-and-protect-the-environment [https://perma.cc/L6N6-P7H8].
173
See ENERGY STAR Products, supra note 172.
174
ENERGY STAR Impacts, EnErgy star, Epa, & u.s. dEp’t oF EnErgy, https://www.energystar.gov/about/origins_mission/impacts (last
visited Nov. 18, 2021) [https://perma.cc/Q636-ZHJK].
175
Id.
176
TRUE program for zero waste certification, truE, https://true.gbci.org/true-program-zero-waste-certification (last visited Nov. 18,
2021) [https://perma.cc/HEF2-6DDD].
177
Marisa Long, GBCI to Administer Zero Waste Certification and Credential, u.s. grEEn Bldg. council (Oct. 5, 2016), https://www.usgbc.
org/articles/gbci-administer-zero-waste-certification-and-credential [https://perma.cc/4BRD-L8VQ].
178
TRUE program for zero waste certification, supra note 176.
179
sustainaBlE mgmt. oF Food, United States Food Loss and Waste 2030 Champions, Epa, https://www.epa.gov/sustainable-
management-food/united-states-food-loss-and-waste-2030-champions#about (last visited Jan. 17, 2022) [https://perma.cc/G92G-
CRDC].
180
sustainaBlE mgmt. oF Food, Learn About the Food Recovery Challenge, Epa, https://www.epa.gov/sustainable-management-food/
learn-about-food-recovery-challenge (last visited Feb 27, 2022) [https://perma.cc/2JRB-XYCF].
181
rEFEd roadmap to 2030 at-a-glancE, supra note 12.
182
ReFED Insights Engine: Food Waste Monitor, supra note 2.
183
Id.
184
Key Action Area: Enhance Product Distribution, rEFEd, https://refed.org/action-areas/enhance-product-distribution (last visited
Nov. 21, 2021) [https://perma.cc/8W27-TEMW].
185
Key Action Area: Refine Product Management, rEFEd, https://refed.org/action-areas/refine-product-management (last visited Nov.
21, 2021) [https://perma.cc/4LKJ-KAS2].
186
Elliot Maras, Temperature Control: The Ongoing Quest In The Food Supply Chain, Food logistics (Aug. 14, 2015), https://www.
foodlogistics.com/transportation/cold-chain/article/12096528/temperature-control-the-ongoing-quest-in-the-food-supply-chain
[https://perma.cc/D9W5-JWXC].
187
ReFED Insights Engine Solutions Database: Intelligent Routing, rEFEd, https://insights-engine.refed.org/solution-database/
intelligent-routing (last visited Nov. 21, 2021) [https://perma.cc/4GHM-KRN3].
188
Investment Tax Credit, 26 U.S.C. § 48 (2018).
189
What Solar Tax Credits Are Available in 2021?, EnphasE (May 21, 2021), https://www4.enphase.com/en-us/stories/what-solar-tax-
credits-are-available-2021 [https://perma.cc/NF2Q-UZJC]; Solar Investment Tax Credit (ITC), solar EnErgiEs indus. assoc., https://
www.seia.org/initiatives/solar-investment-tax-credit-itc (last visited Nov. 21, 2021) [https://perma.cc/G89J-Z5KN].
190
a roadmap to rEducE u.s. Food WastE By 20 pErcEnt, supra note 159 at 48.
191
Food Waste FAQs, usda, https://www.usda.gov/foodwaste/faqs (last visited Dec. 3, 2021) [https://perma.cc/NY84-LKJE]; Key
Statistics & Graphics, usda Econ. rsch. sErv., https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/food-nutrition-assistance/food-security-in-the-us/
key-statistics-graphics/ (last visited Dec. 3, 2021) [https://perma.cc/SL47-SY8A]; gundErs, WastEd, supra note 90.
192
Analysis oF u.s. Food WastE among Food manuFacturErs, rEtailErs, and rEstaurants, supra note 16.
193
See Jessica A. Cohen, Ten Years of Leftovers with Many Hungry Still Left Over: A Decade of Donations Under the Bill Emerson Good
Samaritan Food Donation Act, 5 sEattlE J. For soc. JusticE 455, 468–74 (2006).
194
Emerson Act, supra note 17 at
§ 1791(c).
195
Analysis oF u.s. Food WastE among Food manuFacturErs, rEtailErs, and rEstaurants, supra note 16 at 17, 24.
196
a roadmap to rEducE u.s. Food WastE By 20 pErcEnt, supra note 159 at 48.
197
Emerson Act, supra note 17 at
§ 1791.
198
Flpc, lEgal Fact shEEt: thE Bill EmErson good samaritan Food donation act (2013), https://www.chlpi.org/wp-content/
uploads/2013/12/Emerson-Act-Legal-Fact-Sheet.pdf [https://perma.cc/U896-CJ8H].
199
Agriculture Improvement Act, supra note 26 at § 12504 (2018); 7 U.S.C. § 6924(b)(1).
200
Frequently Asked Questions about the Bill Emerson Good Samaritan Food Donation Act, usda, https://www.usda.gov/sites/
default/files/documents/usda-good-samaritan-faqs.pdf (last visited Mar. 31, 2022) [https://perma.cc/K93U-MHSC].
201
See Emerson Act, supra note 17 at §1791(c).
202
See, e.g., ariz. rEv. stat. ann. § 36-916; n.h. rEv. stat. ann. § 508:15; vt. stat. ann. tit. 12, § 5762 (2017).
203
Agriculture Improvement Act, supra note 26 at § 7507.
204
See, e.g., Feeding Hungry Students in Schools Act of 2021, H.R. 4802, 117th Cong. (2021).
205
Emerson Act, supra note 17 at § 1791(b)(3). § 1791(b)(3).
206
Social supermarkets are nonprofit grocery stores that sell donated and recovered food at a very low price. See Jay Rayner, The Rise
48
Opportunities to Reduce Food Waste in the2023 Farm Bill
of Social Supermarkets, guardian (May 19, 2019), https://www.theguardian.com/society/2019/may/19/social-supermarkets-food-
poverty-jay-rayner/ (last visited Mar. 24, 2022); see also Serri Graslie, Social Supermarkets A ‘Win-Win-Win’ For Europe’s Poor, NPR
(Dec. 12, 2013), https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2013/12/11/250185245/social-supermarkets-a-win-win-win-for-europes-poor
[https://perma.cc/6L7D-D4RB]. Social supermarkets have had much success as an alternative to rescue food and support those in
need of food access. Id.; see also Flpc, FEdEral policiEs to support thE Food systEm and consumErs during covid-19 6 (2020), https://
chlpi.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/FLPC-Policies-v4.pdf [https://perma.cc/EHT6-DSD3].
207
Id.
208
Documentation, usda Econ. rsch. sErv. (May 24, 2021), https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/food-access-research-atlas/
documentation/ [https://perma.cc/7URQ-D43U].
209
About Us, daily taBlE, https://dailytable.org/about (last visited Dec. 3, 2021) [https://perma.cc/B9PV-RNCR].
210
Daily Table, daily taBlE, https://dailytable.org/ (last visited Dec. 3, 2021) [https://perma.cc/PAX2-LB9J].
211
Id.
212
This estimate includes all secondary resellers, not just non-profits. a roadmap to rEducE u.s. Food WastE By 20 pErcEnt, supra note
159 at 36.
213
Emerson Act, supra note 17 at §1791(c).
214
See, e.g., mass. gEn. laWs 94 § 328 (2021); or. rEv. stat. § 30.890 (2021).
215
See Food Donation Improvement Act of 2021, S. 3281, 117th Cong. (2021); Food Donation Improvement Act of 2021, H.R. 6251, 117th
Cong. (2021).
216
ReFED Insights Engine Solutions Database: Donation Transportation, rEFEd, https://insights-engine.refed.org/solution-database/
donation-transportation (last visited Dec. 3, 2021) [https://perma.cc/GU6K-5N8V]; ReFED Insights Engine Solutions Database:
Donation Storage Handling & Capacity, rEFEd, https://insights-engine.refed.org/solution-database/donation-storage-handling-
capacity (last visited Feb. 23, 2022) [https://perma.cc/6D8H-PCSN].
217
See Community Solutions Act of 2001: Hearing on H.R. 7 Before the Subcomm. on Human Res. & the Subcomm. on Select Revenue
Measures of the H. Comm. on Ways & Means, 107th Cong. 98, 100–01 (2001) (statement of Bill Reighard, President, Food Donation
Connection) (discussing the steps that must be taken in order to prepare food for donation).
218
See Jane Brennan et al., Food Banks Apply 2020 Lessons to Plan for Their Future, mckinsEy & co. (May 11, 2021), https://www.
mckinsey.com/featured-insights/food-security/food-banks-apply-2020-lessons-to-plan-for-their-future [https://perma.cc/TM9Z-
AGAK].
219
ReFED found that over 2,000 new jobs would be created by investments in donation transportation while diverting 643,000 tons
of food waste annually. ReFED Insights Engine Solutions Database: Donation Transportation, supra note 216.
220
Id.
221
USDA to Invest $1 Billion to Purchase Healthy Food for Food Insecure Americans and Build Food Bank Capacity, usda (June
4, 2021), https://www.usda.gov/media/press-releases/2021/06/04/usda-invest-1-billion-purchase-healthy-food-food-insecure-
americans [https://perma.cc/39NX-NVQK] [hereinafter USDA to Invest $1 Billion to Purchase Healthy Food].
222
See id.
223
For a listing of some donation matching technology, visit Search the Directory, Food rEscuE locator, https://foodrescuelocator.com/
(last visited March 14, 2022) [https://perma.cc/S8J5-XKD9].
224
Specialty Crop Block Grant Program, usda agric. mktg. sErv., https://www.ams.usda.gov/services/grants/scbgp (last visited Mar. 11,
2022) [https://perma.cc/R3WU-4YF7].
225
Agriculture Improvement Act, supra note 26 at § 2034.
226
Id. at § 2034(d)(2); usda niFa, rEquEst For application: community Food proJEcts compEtitivE grant 22 (2021), https://nifa.usda.gov/
sites/default/files/rfa/FY21-CFP-MOD-RFA-508.pdf (last visited Dec. 3, 2021) [https://perma.cc/GBQ2-SHM].
227
USDA NIFA, REquEst For application: community Food proJEcts compEtitivE grant 23 (2021), https://nifa.usda.gov/sites/default/files/rfa/
FY21-CFP-MOD-RFA-508.pdf (last visited Dec. 3, 2021) [https://perma.cc/GBQ2-SHM].
228
7 U.S.C §§ 2034(a)(2), (c).
229
Agriculture Improvement Act, supra note 26 at § 2034.
230
Id.
231
Community Food Projects (CFP) Competitive Grants Program, USDA NIFA (Dec. 17, 2020), https://nifa.usda.gov/funding-
opportunity/community-food-projects-cfp-competitive-grants-program [https://perma.cc/BN9V-T4EF].
232
Agriculture Improvement Act, supra note 26 at § 1627c.
233
Id. at §§ 1627c(i)(1), 1627c(d)(4).
234
Id. at § 1627c(d)(2)(H); rEFEd roadmap to 2030 at-a-glancE, supra note 12.
235
The project recipient was Providence Farm Collective Corp. USDA, FarmErs markEt promotion program Fiscal yEar 2021 dEscription
oF FundEd proJEcts 33 (2021), https://www.ams.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media/FY2021FMPPDescriptionofFundedProjects.pdf
[https://perma.cc/DK8W-CB6D].
236
USDA, transportation and markEting local Food promotion program Fiscal yEar 2021 dEscription oF FundEd proJEcts 4–5, 16 (2021),
https://www.ams.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media/FY2021LFPPDescriptionofFundedProjects.pdf [https://perma.cc/92YE-9AZY].
237
USDA Invests $92.2 Million in Grants for Local, Regional Food Producers Aected by the Pandemic, USDA (May 5, 2021), https://
www.usda.gov/media/press-releases/2021/05/05/usda-invests-922-million-grants-local-regional-food-producers [https://perma.cc/
TFU6-LWGT].
238
Agriculture Improvement Act, supra note 26 at §§ 1627c(d)(3)(6)(E), 1627c(e)(4), 1627c(d)(3)(5)(E).
239
See ReFED Insight Engine Solutions Database: Explore Solutions to Food Waste, rEFEd, https://insights-engine.refed.org/solution-
database?dataView=total&indicator=us-dollars-profit (last visited Feb 23, 2022) [https://perma.cc/6LKE-EK8R].
240
Claudia Hitaj, Food Loss at the Farm Level, usda Econ. rsch. sErv. (July 29, 2021), https://www.usda.gov/media/blog/2019/04/16/
food-loss-farm-level [https://perma.cc/WU8B-HZZP].
241
Id.
242
ReFED Insights Engine: Food Waste Monitor, supra note 2.
243
Agriculture Improvement Act, supra note 26 at § 7507(d)(3).
244
Id. at § 7507(d).
245
usda, Fns-gd-2021-0106, FD-151: tEFap quEstions and ansWErs aBout Farm to Food Bank proJEcts (2021).
Opportunities to Reduce Food Waste in the2023 Farm Bill
49
246
usda, Fns-gd-2021-0092, thE EmErgEncy Food assistancE program (tEFap) - statE plan rEquEsts and allocations For Fiscal yEar
2022 Farm to Food Bank proJEcts (2021).
247
usda, Fns-gd-2021-0092, thE EmErgEncy Food assistancE program (tEFap) - statE plan rEquEsts and allocations For Fiscal yEar
2022 Farm to Food Bank proJEcts (2021). The program has four rounds of funding planned. The first round of grants was issued
in May 2020 and granted $3.752 million to 19 states. usda, thE EmErgEncy Food assistancE program Fiscal yEar 2020 Farm to Food
Bank proJEct summariEs (2020), https://fns-prod.azureedge.net/sites/default/files/resource-files/FY20%20Farm%20to%20Food%20
Bank%20Project%20Summaries_for%20website%20.pdf (last visited Dec. 16, 2021) [https://perma.cc/E3UH-E84Z]. The second
round of grants were issued in December 2020 and granted $3.764 million to 24 states. For this round of grants, seven new states
submitted applications, while two states that participated in the first round did not apply. USDA, thE EmErgEncy Food assistancE
program Fiscal yEar 2021 Farm to Food Bank proJEct summariEs, https://indd.adobe.com/view/0f7fc1aa-dedf-4f5f-b88a-e6c78ce19f05
[https://perma.cc/JZ7T-A7JP]. The third round of grants used funding from FY2021 and FY2022 and will be issued in two parts
during 2022, allocating $7.544 million to 29 states and territories. This round had 22 applicants who had applied in one of the
previous rounds and seven applicants that had never applied. usda, thE EmErgEncy Food assistancE program Fiscal yEar 2022 Farm
to Food Bank proJEct summariEs, https://indd.adobe.com/view/03475b50-ee1f-48e7-9bea-1433240e4d96 [https://perma.cc/33ZD-
GDXQ]; usda, Fns-gd-2021-0092, thE EmErgEncy Food assistancE program (tEFap) - statE plan rEquEsts and allocations For Fiscal
yEar 2022 Farm to Food Bank proJEcts (2021). The fourth round of grants is planned for FY2023, with anticipated funding of $3.772
million. usda, Fns-gd-2021-0092, thE EmErgEncy Food assistancE program (tEFap) - statE plan rEquEsts and allocations For Fiscal
yEar 2022 Farm to Food Bank proJEcts (2021).
248
Agriculture Improvement Act, supra note 26 § 7507.
249
Stakeholder interviews conducted between October 2021 and December 2021. Notes on file with authors.
250
Stakeholder interviews conducted between October 2021 and December 2021. Notes on file with authors.
251
Agriculture Improvement Act, supra note 26 at § 7507(d)(2)(B).
252
TEFAP Farm to Food Bank Projects Potential Allocation Worksheet, usda (July 30, 2021), https://fns-prod.azureedge.net/sites/
default/files/resource-files/Attachment%20B%20-%20FY%202021%20TEFAP%20Farm%20to%20Food%20Bank%20Projects%20
Potential%20Allocations_8.25.21.pdf [https://perma.cc/BE3R-U5LT].
253
See id.
254
Agriculture Improvement Act, supra note 26 at § 7507 (d)(2)(C)(ii).
255
USDA Farmers to Families Food Box, usda agric. mktg. sErv., https://www.ams.usda.gov/selling-food-to-usda/farmers-to-families-
food-box (last visited Dec. 3, 2021) [https://perma.cc/7DVU-TXT5].
256
Farmers to Families Food Box - Stakeholders Letter, usda agric. mktg. sErv., https://www.ams.usda.gov/selling-food-to-usda/
farmers-to-families-food-box-letter (last visited Dec. 3, 2021) [https://perma.cc/P7XC-2Q4N]; see Pre-Solicitation Announcement
TEFAP Fresh Produce, usda agric. mktg. sErv. (Apr. 9, 2021) [https://perma.cc/AA79-FLZL]; Dairy Donation Program, usda agric.
mktg. sErv., https://www.ams.usda.gov/services/ddp (last visited Dec. 3, 2021) [https://perma.cc/EGA8-K6B9]; see also Emily Broad
lEiB, JosEph BEckmann, ariEl ardura Et al, Flpc & nat’l sustainaBlE agric. coal. (nsac), an Evaluation oF thE FarmErs to FamiliEs Food
Box program (2021), https://www.chlpi.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/F2F-Food-Box-Report-Online-Final1.pdf [https://perma.cc/
UGN6-AAHX] [hereinafter Flpc, an Evaluation oF thE FarmErs to FamiliEs Food Box program]; USDA to Invest $1 Billion to Purchase
Healthy Food, supra note 221; USDA Invests $92.2 Million in Grants for Local, Regional Food Producers Aected by the Pandemic,
supra note 237.
257
Flpc, an Evaluation oF thE FarmErs to FamiliEs Food Box program, supra note 256.
258
Fresh Produce Procurement Reform Act of 2021, H.R. 5309, 117th Cong. (2021).
259
Id.
260
See discussion of LAMP and CFP, supra Section II.B.
261
USDA Announces $90.2 Million in Grants Awarded to Strengthen Local and Regional Markets for U.S. Agricultural Products, usda
(Nov. 23, 2021), https://www.usda.gov/media/press-releases/2021/11/23/usda-announces-902-million-grants-awarded-strengthen-
local-and#:~:text=WASHINGTON%2C%20Nov.,local%20and%20regional%20food%20businesses [https://perma.cc/9F96-A8LC]
[hereinafter USDA Announces $90.2 Million in Grants]; See generally USDA Agric. Mktg. Serv., Grants & Opportunities, usda agric.
mktg. sErv., https://www.ams.usda.gov/services/grants (last visited Jan. 18, 2022) [https://perma.cc/R9GW-9NSD].
262
USDA Announces $90.2 Million in Grants, supra note 261; See generally Grants & Opportunities, supra note 261.
263
usda, omB. no. 0581-0229, usda FarmErs markEt 2019 rulEs, procEdurEs, and opErating guidElinEs 8 (2019).
264
7 C.F.R. § 170.12(c) (2021).
265
S.B. 1383, 2015–2016 Reg. Sess. (Cal. 2016).
266
cal. codE rEgs. tit. 14, § 18991.3 (2021).
267
Id. Similarly, France requires large supermarkets to contract with food recovery organizations as part of the country’s national
food waste regulation. Marie Mourad & Steven Finn, France’s Ban on Food Waste Three Years Later, Food tank (June 2019), https://
foodtank.com/news/2019/06/opinion-frances-ban-on-food-waste-three-years-later/ [https://perma.cc/2VHK-LD8F].
268
See USDA Invests $92.2 Million in Grants for Local, Regional Food Producers Aected by the Pandemic, supra note 237.
269
Id.
270
Emily Broad lEiB Et al., Flpc, thE gloBal Food donation policy atlas: unitEd statEs lEgal guidE Food donation laW and policy 11 (2020),
https://www.foodbanking.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/USA-Legal-Guide.pdf [https://perma.cc/VSJ6-8Y8G].
271
26 U.S.C. § 170(e)(1).
272
See id. at § 170(e)(3)(B); 26 C.F.R. § 1.170A-4A(b)(4) (2021).
273
See 26 U.S.C. § 170(e)(3)(B).
274
FLPC, America Can Finally Give More: Congress Passes Permanent Extension of Enhanced Tax Deductions for Food Donations,
ctr. For hEalth l. & pol’y innovation (chlpi) (Dec. 22, 2015), https://www.chlpi.org/america-can-finally-give-more-congress-passes-
permanent-extension-of-enhanced-tax-deductions-for-food-donations/ [https://perma.cc/28UF-TFNJ].
275
Id.
276
See H.R. 2029, 114th Cong. § 113(a) (2016) (codified at 26 U.S.C. § 170(e)(3)(C)).
277
See Tax Credits vs. Tax Deductions, intErnal rEvEnuE sErv. (irs), https://www.irs.com/articles/tax-credits-vs-tax-deductions (last
visited Dec. 3, 2021) [https://perma.cc/7M6W-W9UF].
278
Id.
50
Opportunities to Reduce Food Waste in the2023 Farm Bill
279
See, e.g., cal. rEv. & tax. codE § 17053.12; see also Emily Broad lEiB Et al, Flpc, kEEping Food out oF thE landFill: policy idEas For statEs
and localitiEs (2016), https://chlpi.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Food-Waste-Toolkit_Oct-2016_smaller.pdf [https://perma.
cc/2CZV-FSF9].
280
See discussion on increasing funding support for food recovery infrastructure, supra Section II.B.
281
cal. rEv. & tax. codE § 17053.12 (2021).
282
See discussion of Emerson Act, supra Section II.A.
283
The federal enhanced tax deduction does not apply if the donation is made “in exchange for money, other property, or services.” 26
U.S.C. § 170(e)(3)(A)(ii).
284
Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008, H.R.2419, 110th Cong. (2008).
285
ReFED Insights Engine Solutions Database: Gleaning, rEFEd, https://insights-engine.refed.org/solution-database/gleaning (last
visited Feb. 23, 2022) [https://perma.cc/MCW2-MLKG].
286
The RMA defines gleaning as “the collection of wholesome food for distribution for those in need.” The terms “gleaning” and “food
recovery” are often used interchangeably. Risk Management Agency Fact Sheet: Gleaning Crops, usda risk mgmt. agEncy, https://
www.rma.usda.gov/en/Fact-Sheets/National-Fact-Sheets/Gleaning-Crops (Oct. 2017), [https://perma.cc/PR6Y-TKYD].
287
Id.
288
thE nat’l glEaning proJEct, vt. l. sch. ctr. For agric. & Food sys. (caFs), usda nat’l agric. liB., rEducing Food insEcurity and Food
WastE: improving thE national FramEWork to support glEaning opErations 8 (2017), https://nationalgleaningproject.org/wp-content/
uploads/2018/12/NGP-reducing-food-insecurity-and-waste.pdf [https://perma.cc/S8TJ-ZYW2] [hereinafter CAFS, rEducing Food
insEcurity and Food WastE].
289
Risk Management Agency Fact Sheet: Gleaning Crops, supra note 286.
290
Paul Goeringer, Gleaning Unharvested Crops and Crop Insurance or NAP Coverage, collEgE oF agric. & nat’l rEs. (June 29, 2020),
https://www.agrisk.umd.edu/post/gleaning-unharvested-crops-and-crop-insurance-or-nap-coverage [https://perma.cc/V4Z7-
4RN8].
291
usda risk mgmt. agEncy & FEd. crop ins. corp. (Fcic), loss adJustmEnt manual standards handBook: 2021 and succEEding crop yEars 153
(2020), https://www.rma.usda.gov/-/media/RMA/Handbooks/Loss-Adjustment-Standards---25000/Loss-Adjustment-Manual/2021-
25010-1H-Loss-Adjustment-Standards-Handbook.ashx [https://perma.cc/E8MA-ZJYW]; Goeringer, supra note 290.
292
Risk Management Agency Fact Sheet: Gleaning Crops, supra note 286.
293
Id.
294
Id.
295
usda commodity crEdit coopEration, noninsurEd crop disastEr assistancE: 2020 and suBsEquEnt yEars Basic provisions 15
(2020), https://www.fsa.usda.gov/Assets/USDA-FSA-Public/usdafiles/State-Oces/Indiana/pdfs/ccc-471_nap_basic_
provisions_03-04-2020.pdf [https://perma.cc/3FVA-XG6R].
296
Telephone interview with USDA Risk Management Agency, Nov. 8, 2021. Notes on file with authors.
297
Id.
298
CAFS, rEducing Food insEcurity and Food WastE, supra note 288 at 8.
299
42 U.S.C. § 1791.
300
Id.
301
In about half of the states, in addition to being protected by the Good Samaritan Act, farmers are also protected by state legislation
that limits a farmer’s liability for damages in a civil action brought against the farmer for an injury to a person or property by a
charitable organization or an agent of a charitable organization the farmer permits onto the farmer’s property. See Legal & Policy
Resources, CAFS nat’l glEaning proJEct, https://nationalgleaningproject.org/legal-policy-resources/ (last visited Oct. 14, 2021)
[https://perma.cc/7CY2-3594].
302
CAFS, rEducing Food insEcurity and Food WastE, supra note 288 at 15.
303
Risk Management Agency Fact Sheet: Gleaning Crops, supra note 286.
304
Id.
305
42 U.S.C. § 1791.
306
Agriculture Improvement Act, supra note 26 at § 1601.
307
advancing sustainaBlE matErials managEmEnt, supra note 19.
308
See Time is Running Out, supra note 23.
309
Landfill Methane Outreach Program (LMOP): Basic Information about Landfill Gas, Epa, https://www.epa.gov/lmop/basic-
information-about-landfill-gas (last visited March 5, 2022) [https://perma.cc/229L-5E8B].
310
See Cheikh Mbow Et al., Special Report on Climate Change and Land Chapter 5: Food Security, IPCC (2018), https://www.ipcc.ch/
srccl/chapter/chapter-5/ [https://perma.cc/T4BR-QAH2].
311
Global Methane Initiative: Importance of Methane, EPA, https://www.epa.gov/gmi/importance-methane#:~:text=Methane%20is%20
more%20than%2025,due%20to%20human%2Drelated%20activities (last visited Mar. 31, 2022) [https://perma.cc/3KSJ-VUX4];
Reduce Methane Pollution and Leaks, NRDC, https://www.nrdc.org/issues/reduce-methane-pollution-and-leaks (last visited Mar.
31, 2022) [https://perma.cc/LRZ5-LUGX]; see also Chad Frischmann, Opinion: The climate impact of the food in the back of your
fridge, Wash. post Worldpost (July 31, 2018), https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/theworldpost/wp/2018/07/31/food-waste/
[https://perma.cc/D8K8-P4TP].
312
Report on the Environment: Greenhouse Gases, Epa, https://www.epa.gov/report-environment/greenhouse-gases (last visited Oct.
10, 2021) [https://perma.cc/7TFW-TTJL].
313
Id.
314
us Food loss and WastE action plan, supra note 25; nrdc, tackling Food WastE in citiEs, supra note 91.
315
us Food loss and WastE action plan, supra note 25; nrdc, tackling Food WastE in citiEs, supra note 91.
316
us Food loss and WastE action plan, supra note 25; a roadmap to rEducE u.s. Food WastE By 20 pErcEnt, supra note 159 at 56.
317
After One Year, Mass. Commercial Food Waste Disposal Ban Gets Results, cEt (Oct. 6, 2015), https://www.centerforecotechnology.
org/after-one-year-mass-commercial-food-waste-disposal-ban-gets-results/ [https://perma.cc/3C4M-TRKF] [hereinafter CET, After
Year One]; see also A Success Story: The Massachusetts Commercial Organics Waste Ban, Env’t council oF thE statEs (Mar. 24, 2016),
https://vimeo.com/160289284 [https://perma.cc/Y2MM-D78U] [hereinafter Massachusetts Commercial Organics Waste Ban]; See
310 mass. codE rEgs. 19.017, supra note 46.
Opportunities to Reduce Food Waste in the2023 Farm Bill
51
318
CET, After Year One, supra note 317; see also Massachusetts Commercial Organics Waste Ban, supra note 317.
319
Results are in: Trash is Down, Recycling is UP!, vt. dEp’t oF Env’t consErvation 2 (July 27, 2016), https://nerc.org/news-and-updates/
nerc-bulletin/september-2016#vtrecyclingincreasing [https://perma.cc/U6PG-HH5V]. The Vermont organic waste ban is located at
vt. stat. ann. tit. 10, § 6605k, supra note 46.
320
conn. gEn. stat. ann. § 22a-226e, supra note 46.
321
310 mass. codE rEgs. 19.017, supra note 46.
322
n.y.c. admin codE § 16-306.1, supra note 46.
323
r.i. gEn. laWs § 23-18.9-17, supra note 46.
324
n.J. stat. ann. § 13:1E-99.123, supra note 46.
325
md. codE ann., Envir. § 9-1724.1 (LexisNexis 2021).
326
vt. stat. ann. tit. 10, § 6605k, supra note 46.
327
cal. puB. rEs. codE § 42649.81, supra note 46.
328
cal. puB. rEs. codE § 42652.5(a)(2) (2016).
329
Bans and BEyond, supra note 44.
330
d.c. codE § 8-1031.01–8-1031.03, supra note 44.
331
Zero Food Waste Act of 2021, H.R. 4444, 117th Cong. (2021); Zero Food Waste Act of 2021, S. 2389, 117th Cong. (2021) [hereinafter
Zero Food Waste Act of 2021]; COMPOST, Zero Food Waste Legislation Introduced in Congress, BiocyclE (July 20, 2021), https://
www.biocycle.net/compost-zero-food-waste-legislation-introduced-in-congress/ [https://perma.cc/L3EA-VGXG].
332
Zero Food Waste Act of 2021, supra note 331 at § 2(a)(2) (2021).
333
Id. at § 2(3)(a)(i-ii).
334
Id. at § 2(3)(B-C).
335
us Food loss and WastE action plan, supra note 25.
336
ReFED Insights Engine Solutions Database: Centralized Anaerobic Digestion, rEFEd, https://insights-engine.refed.org/solution-
database/centralized-anaerobic-digestion (last visited Feb. 23, 2022) [https://perma.cc/6YTA-W66U]; ReFED Insights Engine
Solutions Database: Centralized Composting, rEFEd, https://insights-engine.refed.org/solution-database/centralized-composting
(last visited Feb. 23, 2022) [https://perma.cc/3G42-BPMF].
337
Composting At Home, Epa, https://www.epa.gov/recycle/composting-home (last visited Feb 10., 2022) [https://perma.cc/M7KR-
KC44].
338
See hannah marsh, Food WastE compost application to grasslands thE climatE changE mitigation potEntial oF Food WastE compost
application to grassland soils (2019), https://nature.berkeley.edu/classes/es196/projects/2019final/MarshH_2019.pdf [https://perma.
cc/MPJ8-QF83].
339
See Sintana E. Vergara & Whendee L. Silver, Greenhouse gas emissions from windrow composting of organic wastes: patterns and
emissions factors, 14 Env’t rEsEarch lEttEr (2019).
340
EPA Announces Selection of 11 Organizations to Receive $2 Million to Help Tackle the Climate Crisis Through Food Diversion, Epa
(Feb. 24, 2022), https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-announces-selection-11-organizations-receive-2-million-help-tackle-
climate-crisis [https://perma.cc/F5RA-F52J].
341
a roadmap to rEducE u.s. Food WastE By 20 pErcEnt, supra note 159 at 66.
342
Id.
343
See generally, Do Good Foods: Good for Place & Planet, do good Foods, https://dogoodfoods.com/ (last visited Nov. 28, 2021)
[https://perma.cc/36VQ-A9X6].
344
a roadmap to rEducE u.s. Food WastE By 20 pErcEnt, supra note 159 at 62.
345
A large composting facility can process up to 40,000 tons per year. Id. at 61.
346
Food Waste Composting Infrastructure in the U.S., BiocyclE (Jan. 4, 2019), https://www.biocycle.net/food-waste-composting-
infrastructure-u-s/ [https://perma.cc/7Y98-CQV9].
347
Stakeholder interviews conducted between October 2021 and December 2021. Notes on file with authors.
348
For example, the City of Madison noted that they had to discontinue household compost pick-up because they did not have a
compost processing facility, but they will continue household pick-up once they can aord to build such a facility. Stakeholder
interviews conducted between October 2021 and December 2021. Notes on file with authors.
349
Agriculture Improvement Act, supra note 26 at § 6923(d).
350
Id. at § 6923(e).
351
Community Compost and Food Waste Reduction Project FAQ, usda FarmErs.gov (Jun. 19, 2020), https://www.farmers.gov/your-
business/urban/opportunities/ccfwr-faq [https://perma.cc/9AFS-UGV7].
352
Id.
353
USDA Announces First-Ever Recipients, supra note 27.
354
Community Compost and Food Waste Reduction Project FAQ, supra note 351.
355
Agriculture Improvement Act, supra note 26 at § 6923(d)(2).
356
Urban Agriculture Cooperative Agreements, usda FarmErs.gov, https://www.farmers.gov/your-business/urban/opportunities/coop-
agreements (last visited Oct. 16, 2021) [https://perma.cc/3UKZ-PLQS] (listing all funded 2021 CCFWR projects).
357
See generally, Stakeholder interviews conducted between October 2021 and December 2021. Notes on file with authors.
358
These problems were identified through interviews conducted by FLPC with 2020 and 2021 CCFWR grant recipients.
359
Stakeholder interviews conducted between October 2021 and December 2021. Notes on file with authors.
360
See Stakeholder interviews conducted between October 2021 and December 2021. Notes on file with authors.
361
Agriculture Improvement Act, supra note 26 at § 6923(d)(2)(D).
362
See Stakeholder interviews conducted between October 2021 and December 2021. Notes on file with authors.
363
Agriculture Improvement Act, supra note 26 at § 1932(b).
364
Water & Waste Disposal Loan & Grant Program, USDA rural. dEv., https://www.rd.usda.gov/programs-services/water-waste-
disposal-loan-grant-program (last visited Apr. 21, 2021), [https://perma.cc/JD95-XKRL].
365
Agriculture Improvement Act, supra note 26 at § 1932(b).
366
Id.
367
usda rural utilitiEs sErv. (rus), 2021 congrEssional JustiFications-rural utilitiEs sErvicE, usda 33–16 (2021) https://www.usda.gov/
52
Opportunities to Reduce Food Waste in the2023 Farm Bill
sites/default/files/documents/rural-development-rural-utilities-service-fy2021-congressional-justifications.pdf [https://perma.cc/
Q2EV-DU8K].
368
Solid Waste Management Grants, usda rural dEv., https://www.rd.usda.gov/programs-services/water-environmental-programs/
solid-waste-management-grants (last visited Nov. 24, 2021) [https://perma.cc/BB2Z-PM6C].
369
Solid Waste Management FY 2021 Grantees, usda rural dEv., (2021) https://www.rd.usda.gov/sites/default/files/swm_fy2021_
project_narratives.pdf [https://perma.cc/3P5K-YQ5W].
370
usda rural dEv. & rural util. sErv., application guidE For tEchnical assistancE and training and solid WastE managEmEnt grant
programs Fiscal yEar 2017 (2017), https://www.rd.usda.gov/files/RD-WEP-AppGuideTAT_SWM_FY2017.pdf [https://perma.cc/X2DJ-
JV37].
371
USDA rural dEv., Funding For Food WastE rEduction proJEcts From usda rural dEvElopmEnt 3 (2016), https://www.usda.gov/sites/
default/files/documents/RD_Food_Loss_and_Waste_Guide.pdf [https://perma.cc/U4L5-642E].
372
Appropriations Committee Releases Fiscal Year 2021 Agriculture-Rural Development-FDA Funding Bill, housE comm. on
appropriations (Jul. 5, 2020), https://appropriations.house.gov/news/press-releases/appropriations-committee-releases-fiscal-year-
2021-agriculture-rural-development [https://perma.cc/H9T2-HRY3].
373
Water & Waste Disposal Loan & Grant Program, supra note 364.
374
rEFEd roadmap to 2030 at-a-glancE, supra note 12 at 5, 10.
375
Cultivating Organic Matter through the Promotion Of Sustainable Techniques Act “COMPOST Act” of 2021, S. 2388, 117th Cong.
(2021); Cultivating Organic Matter through the Promotion Of Sustainable Techniques Act “COMPOST Act” of 2021, H.R. 4443, 117th
Cong. (2021) [hereinafter COMPOST Act of 2021].
376
Id. at § 310J.
377
Id.
378
Zero Food Waste Act of 2021, supra note 331 at § 2(a)(3)(C).
379
Id. at § 2(b)(4).
380
chloE WatErman Et al., Food procurEmEnt and inFrastructurE, data For progrEss 2 (2021), https://www.filesforprogress.org/memos/
food-procurement-and-infrastructure.pdf [https://perma.cc/3WRU-GCGJ].
381
42 U.S.C. § 1792.
382
See Federal Sustainability Progress, Plans, and Performance, council on Env’t quality, https://www.sustainability.gov/performance.
html (last visited Mar. 5, 2022) [https://perma.cc/8JPY-7BZV].
383
Emily Marriott & Ed Zaborski, Making and Using Compost for Organic Farming, Eorganic (Jan. 15, 2020), https://eorganic.org/
node/2880 [https://perma.cc/25E3-TTGV].
384
Sustainable Management of Food: Reducing the Impact of Wasted Food by Feeding the Soil and Composting, Epa (Dec. 15, 2021),
https://www.epa.gov/sustainable-management-food/reducing-impact-wasted-food-feeding-soil-and-composting [https://perma.
cc/67EJ-YJB4].
385
For example, many CCFWR grantees report that they plan to scale their compost collection to include household compost pick-
ups once they build infrastructure to process all the food waste. Stakeholder interviews conducted between October 2021 and
December 2021. Notes on file with authors.
386
Exec. Order No. 14,057, 86 Fed. Reg. 70935, 70937 (Dec. 13, 2021).
387
Partnerships for Climate-Smart Commodities, usda, https://www.usda.gov/climate-solutions/climate-smart-commodities (last
visited Mar. 5, 2022) [https://perma.cc/RQM3-QNA4].
388
Id.
389
Pandemic Cover Crop Program, usda FarmErs.gov, https://www.farmers.gov/cover-crops (last visited Dec. 16, 2021) [https://perma.
cc/5VHQ-G8U8].
390
See id.
391
Cover Crops – Keeping Soil in Place While Providing Other Benefits, USDA nat’l rEs. consErv. sErv. (nrcs) n.y., https://www.nrcs.
usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/ny/technical/?cid=nrcs144p2_027252#:~:text=A%20cover%20crop%20slows%20the,holding%20
capacity%20for%20plant%20growth (last visited Mar. 13, 2022) [https://perma.cc/WT4T-N2FR].
392
Id.
393
Id.; Reducing the Impact of Wasted Food by Feeding the Soil and Composting, supra note 384.
394
Compost and Mulch Use in Agriculture: Organic Materials Management, calrEcyclE (Feb. 3, 2021), https://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/
organics/farming#:~:text=Modern%20agriculture%20uses%20compost%20and,and%20health%2C%20and%20conserves%20water
[https://perma.cc/93WB-W3R9].
395
See Can Increased SOM Reduce Crop Insurance Payouts?, BiocyclE (Mar. 30, 2021), https://www.biocycle.net/can-increased-som-
reduce-crop-insurance-payouts/ [https://perma.cc/473Y-KNGN].
396
Compost and Mulch Use in Agriculture: Organic Materials Management, supra note 394.
397
See Science, marin carBon proJEct, https://www.marincarbonproject.org/marin-carbon-project-science (last visited Mar. 4, 2022)
[https://perma.cc/FSS7-N4AT]; see Rebecca Ryals et. al., Long-term climate change mitigation potential with organic matter
management on grasslands, 25 Ecological apps. 531 (Mar. 2015); see Rebecca Ryals & Whendee L. Silver, Eects of organic matter
amendments on net primary productivity and greenhouse gas emissions in annual grasslands, 23 Ecological apps. 46 (Jan. 2013).
398
See JoE l. outlaW Et al., tExas a&m u. agric. & Food pol’y ctr., Economic impact oF highEr FErtilizEr pricEs on aFpc’s rEprEsEntativE
crop Farms (2022), https://afpc.tamu.edu/research/publications/files/711/BP-22-01-Fertilizer.pdf [https://perma.cc/V9WM-3VSM].
399
58 Fed. Reg. 203 (Oct. 20, 1993).
400
Exec. Order No. 13,423, 48 C.F.R. § 970.5223-6 (Oct. 1, 2010).
401
Federal Acquisition Regulation § 23.103.
402
U.S. Dep’t of Energy Sustainable Acquisition Workgroup, Priority Products, FEd. FacilitiEs Env’t stEWardship & compliancE assistancE
ctr., https://www.fedcenter.gov/members/workgroups/sustainableacquisition/priorityproducts/ (last visited Jan. 18, 2022)
[https://perma.cc/EM3W-LZ38]. Under the EPA’s Comprehensive Procurement Guideline (CPG) Program—this is part of its
Sustainable Materials Management initiative that promotes a system approach to reducing materials use, associated greenhouse
gas emissions that contribute to climate change, and the other environmental impacts over the materials’ entire lifecycle—the EPA
designates products that are or can be made with recovered materials, and recommends practices for buying these products.
See Sustainable Materials Management: Comprehensive Procurement Guideline (CPG) Program, EPA https://www.epa.gov/smm/
Opportunities to Reduce Food Waste in the2023 Farm Bill
53
comprehensive-procurement-guideline-cpg-program (last visited Mar. 15, 2022) [https://perma.cc/5MQA-7PF9]. One such product
under this program includes Compost Made From Recovered Organic Materials, which include but are not limited to yard waste,
food waste, manure, and biosolids. Id.; see also Sustainable Materials Management: Comprehensive Procurement Guidelines for
Landscaping Products - Compost Made From Recovered Organic Materials, EPA, https://www.epa.gov/smm/comprehensive-
procurement-guidelines-landscaping-products#compost [https://perma.cc/D4P3-AMG5]. Under this program, procuring agencies
of Compost Made From Recovered Organic Materials are required to purchase it with the highest recovered material content level
practicable. Sustainable Materials Management: Comprehensive Procurement Guidelines for Landscaping Products - Compost
Made From Recovered Organic Materials, EPA, https://www.epa.gov/smm/comprehensive-procurement-guidelines-landscaping-
products#compost [https://perma.cc/D4P3-AMG5].
403
See 10 U.S.C. § 2922g(a).
404
42 U.S.C. § 13212; see also Vehicle Acquisition and Fuel Use Requirements for Federal Fleets, u.s. dEp’t oF EnErgy (Oct. 17, 2021),
https://afdc.energy.gov/laws/357 [https://perma.cc/C4TP-GQ4X].
405
M. L. Westendorf & R. O. Myer, Feeding Food Wastes to Swine, u. oF Florida inst. oF Food & agric. scis. (May 2004), https://edis.ifas.
ufl.edu/publication/an143 [https://perma.cc/QV8T-T8DT].
406
See 9 C.F.R. § 166.1–166.15 (2020) (Swine Health Protection Act regulations).
407
See Emily Broad lEiB Et al., Flpc, Food rEcovEry proJEct, & u. ark. sch. oF l., lEFtovErs For livEstock: a lEgal guidE For using Food
scraps as animal FEEd 8 (Aug. 2016), https://www.chlpi.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Leftovers-for-Livestock_A-Legal-Guide_
August-2016.pdf [https://perma.cc/G6HP-4NU4].
408
See id. at 3 (finding requirements under Swine Health Protection Act ensure scraps are disease-free when fed to animals).
Numerous scientific studies demonstrate that the required heat-treatment of animal food waste renders microbials innocuous. See,
e.g., A.J. Garcia et al., Biodegradable municipal solid waste: Characterization and potential use as animal feedstus, 25 WastE mgmt.
780, 782, 785–786 (2005); Steven Edwards, Survival and inactivation of classical swine fever virus, 73 vEtErinary microBiology 175,
177 (2000).
409
See Ramy Salemdeeb et al., Environmental and health impacts of using food waste as animal feed: a comparative analysis of food
waste management options, 140 J. oF clEanEr prod. 871, 875 (2017).
410
Do Good Foods, supra note 343.
411
Feedback Earth: Transforming discarded food into high-quality animal feed., FEEdBack Earth, https://www.feedback.earth/ (last
visited Mar. 11, 2022) [https://perma.cc/U6GB-FRGZ]; see Lisa Redmond, Feedback Earth seeks to expand tonnage of food waste
turned into animal feed, graFton nEWs (May 23, 2021), https://www.thegraftonnews.com/story/news/local/2021/05/23/feedback-
earth-animal-feed-human-food-waste-creeper-hill-road/5232449001/ [https://perma.cc/Z6W7-T7E9].
412
7 U.S.C. §§ 3801–3813.
413
9 C.F.R. § 166.1–166.15 (2020).
414
7 U.S.C. §§ 3803, 3807, 3809.
415
7 U.S.C. §§ 3803, 3808.
416
See U.S. Food Waste Policy Finder: About the Policy Finder, rEFEd (Mar. 3, 2022), https://policyfinder.refed.org/
about#:~:text=ReFED%20is%20a%20national%20nonprofit,driven%20solutions%20to%20the%20problem [https://perma.cc/PZT2-
HCHE] (filtering state policy and recycling policy).
417
California, Georgia, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New York,
Pennsylvania, Puerto Rico, and South Dakota regulate the feeding of food scraps to other animals. See lEFtovErs For livEstock, supra
note 407 at 10.
418
21 U.S.C. § 2201 et seq.
419
lEFtovErs For livEstock, supra note 407 at 5–6; 80 Fed. Reg. § 56169.
420
lEFtovErs For livEstock, supra note 407 at 7–8.
421
21 C.F.R. § 589.2000 (2016).
422
21 C.F.R. § 589.2000 (2016).
423
21 C.F.R. § 589.2000 (2016).
424
21 C.F.R. § 589.2000 (2016).
425
Agriculture Improvement Act, supra note 26 at § 6924.
426
Id. at § 6924(a).
427
Id. at § 6924(b).
428
Id. at § 6924(d).
429
Id.
430
Id. at § 6924(c).
431
Id. at § 6924(d).
432
Id. at § 6924(e).
433
USDA, Fy 2021 BudgEt summary 93 (2021), https://www.usda.gov/sites/default/files/documents/usda-fy2021-budget-summary.pdf
[https://perma.cc/DYD8-NAXN] (Appendix Table APP-1).
434
Consolidated Appropriations Act, supra note 29.
435
National Food Waste Reduction Act of 2021, H.R. 3652, 117th Cong. (2021).
436
Id. at § 2(a).
437
Id. at § 2(b)(1).
438
What is Food Waste?, ReFED, https://refed.com/food-waste/the-challenge/#what_is_food_waste (last visited Apr. 27, 2021)
[https://perma.cc/WS29-QER4].
439
Linda S. Kantor et al., Estimating and Addressing America’s Food Losses, 20 Food rEv. 2, 3 (1997); see gundErs, WastEd, supra note
90.
440
See Loss-Adjusted Food Availability Documentation, usda Econ. rsch. sErv., https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/
food-availability-per-capita-data-system/loss-adjusted-food-availability-documentation/ (last visited Apr. 27, 2021) [https://
perma.cc/86R4-8JFA]; see also JEan c. BuzBy Et al., usda Econ. rsch. sErv., thE EstimatEd amount, valuE, and caloriEs oF
postharvEst Food lossEs at thE rEtail and consumEr lEvEls in thE unitEd statEs, 10 (2014), https://www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/
publications/43833/43680_eib121.pdf [https://perma.cc/YF7E-CYRS].
54
Opportunities to Reduce Food Waste in the2023 Farm Bill
441
Formal Agreement Among EPA, FDA, and USDA, supra note 30.
442
Winning on Reducing Food Waste, supra note 30.
443
Id.
444
Id.
445
Federal Interagency Food Loss and Waste Collaboration, supra note 41.
446
Id.
447
Id.
448
See, e.g., Epa Et al., Memorandum of Understanding Among The United States Environmental Protection Agency and The United
States Food and Drug Administration and the United States Department of Agriculture and The Founding Partners of the Food
Waste Reduction Alliance Relative to a Federal Government and Nongovernmental Organization Formal Collaboration on Industry
Education and Engagement with Respect to the Importance of Food Waste Reduction (Oct. 25, 2019), https://www.epa.gov/sites/
production/files/2019-10/documents/signed_food_waste_mou.pdf [https://perma.cc/VA4S-PZGP].
449
us Food loss and WastE action plan, supra note 25.
450
ReFED Insights Engine Solutions Database: Donation Coordination & Matching, rEFEd, https://insights-engine.refed.org/solution-
database/donation-coordination-matching (last visited Feb. 23, 2022) [https://perma.cc/6BDP-RMGH].
451
See generally, JosEph Balagtas & JosEph coopEr, usda oFF. oF thE chiEF Economist, thE impact oF coronavirus covid-19 on u.s. mEat and
livEstock markEts (2021), https://www.usda.gov/sites/default/files/documents/covid-impact-livestock-markets.pdf [https://perma.
cc/28UU-YGXD].
452
See Alfred Lubrano, Inflation, supply-chain disruptions are hurting Philly food banks and low-income people, phila. inquirEr
(Nov. 24, 2021), https://www.inquirer.com/news/pennsylvania/pandemic-food-banks-pantries-philabundance-share-supply-
disruptions-20211124.html [https://perma.cc/V8MM-94HA].
453
ReFED Insights Engine Solutions Database: Intelligent Routing, supra note 187.
40
Opportunities to Reduce Food Waste in the2023 Farm Bill
© APRIL 2022
