Policymakers
Stakeholder Recommendations
Policymakers
Stakeholder RECOMMENDATIONS
Policymakers
Summary
Policymakers are not waste generators, but they still play an important role in food waste reduction by enacting policies that can accelerate the adoption of solutions at a large scale. In the U.S., policy related to food waste can exist at the federal, state, and local levels and is inclusive of legislative and regulatory requirements.
In recent years, Policymakers have established pre-competitive business standards; driven sectorwide action; removed barriers to solutions implementation; provided financing to help overcome the stumbling block of misaligned incentives; and more.
Though the characteristics of each policy and the extent to which they promote or impede food waste reduction efforts vary significantly — by incentivizing good practices, penalizing bad behavior, or clarifying what activities are allowed – each has the power to provide a spark that can move the food system to action.
Policy Recommendations
ReFED collaborated with the Harvard Law School Food Law and Policy Clinic to develop a series of legislative and regulatory recommendations arranged by topical groups, including Better Organic Waste Management, Funding for Infrastructure, Funding for Innovation, Improvements to Tax Laws, Expanded Food Donation Policies, and Consumer Education. Each policy is tagged to highlight which of the seven key action areas from our Roadmap to 2030 – Optimize the Harvest, Enhance Supply Chains, Refine Production Management, Maximize Product Utilization, Reshape Consumer Environments, Strengthen Food Rescue, and Recycle Anything Remaining – they would influence. The enactment of these and other related policies can be the critical linchpin in achieving the nation’s 2030 food waste reduction goal.
Better Organic Waste Management
Disincentivize, Limit, or Ban Food from Landfills – [State, Local; Legislative, Regulatory]
Action Areas |
Organic waste bans prohibit food waste from being sent to landfills, which in turn compels any business or other organization subject to the law (there are sometimes thresholds) to reduce their food waste. Organic waste bans are one of the most powerful ways to not only require recovery or recycling, but also incentivize preventative measures and food donations while also enabling measurement. Nine states currently have laws of this nature, as do several localities. Alternatively, while not as strong, increasing landfill tipping fees can achieve some of the same results by disincentivizing waste overall.
Incentivize Implementation of State- and Local-Level Organic Waste Bans – [Federal; Legislative, Regulatory]
Action Areas |
For the first time, the Farm Bill of 2018 included a provision for the Federal government to incentivize local-level organic waste bans and food waste reduction programs by offering funding to build infrastructure or implement food waste reduction plans. Congress could expand and provide more funding for this existing program, which was initially only a pilot, and make similar funding available to state-level applicants.
Eliminate Restrictions and Barriers to Feeding of Food Scraps to Animals - [Federal, State; Legislative, Regulatory]
Action Areas |
Many restaurants, grocery stores, food manufacturers, and small and large farms have food scraps that are no longer edible for humans but are still safe and wholesome for animals. States could review and eliminate any overly stringent restrictions or bans on feeding food scraps to animals. In addition, USDA or state agencies could issue guidance on feeding food scraps to animals.
Increase Landfill Tipping Fees - [State, Local; Legislative, Regulatory]
Action Areas |
Landfills, both public and private, generally charge tipping fees to commercial waste producers who dispose of trash there. Factors that influence tipping fee rates include whether the landfill is public or private, availability of other revenue streams, location, disposal tonnage, and proximity to other landfills. Although tipping fees at individual landfills vary, a region’s mean tipping fee is highly correlated with the percentage of waste disposed of in the region’s landfills. By increasing landfill fees, state and local governments can incentivize businesses to donate surplus food rather than send it to the landfill.
Funding for Infrastructure
Provide Funding for Donation Storage and Capacity - [Federal, State; Legislative, Regulatory]
Action Areas |
The federal government or state governments could provide grant programs to support the costs of temperature-controlled food distribution infrastructure (e.g. refrigeration warehouses), as well as processing infrastructure equipment and facilities to freeze or convert donated or excess food in products such as soups, sauces, and jams.
Funding for Temperature-Controlled Food Distribution Infrastructure – [Federal, State; Legislative]
Action Areas |
Lack of cold storage and transportation is a limiting factor for donation of perishables. Congress or state legislatures could provide funding for temperature-controlled food distribution infrastructure (e.g. refrigeration warehouses, temperature-controlled packaging and transportation) to handle additional food donation volume.
Provide Financial Support and Reduce Permitting Barriers for Food Waste Reduction Infrastructure - [Federal, State, Local; Legislative, Regulatory]
Action Areas |
State and local governments can break down barriers to food waste reduction by funding food recycling infrastructure, such as composting and anaerobic digestion. Funding can take the form of competitive grants, direct spending, or low interest financing. Furthermore, required permits from several disparate agencies can often present challenges for this infrastructure. States could take a dedicated look at streamlining this process.
Funding for Innovation
Funding for Further Farm-Level Research – [Federal; Legislative, Regulatory]
Action Areas |
There is so much still to learn about food loss at the farm level. USDA could conduct studies to quantify and characterize farm-level losses on a semi-regular basis. This could be done through Congress providing funding in the next Farm Bill, or USDA leadership commissioning ERS directly to conduct such studies.
Encourage Crop Preservation and Post-Harvest Loss Prevention Technologies – [Federal; Legislative, Regulatory]
Action Areas |
To increase support for innovations that reduce food loss, USDA could give preference to projects that address issues of crop preservation or post-harvest loss prevention in the Specialty Crop Research Initiative (SCRI) and/or other grant programs. This could be done directly by USDA or through the direction of Congress.
Fund Spoilage-Inhibiting Technologies – [Federal; Legislative, Regulatory]
Action Areas |
Similar to the Specialty Crop Research Initiative (SCRI), there is a need for a funding mechanism that focuses exclusively on providing support for research and development of new technologies that demonstrate effectiveness in loss prevention of dairy, meat, poultry, and fish. To do this, Congress could create a program, possibly in the next Farm Bill.
Incentivize Innovations that Reduce Food Waste - [Federal, State, Local; Legislative, Regulatory]
Action Areas |
To spur adoption of existing technologies and encourage innovation of new ones, rebates, tax deductions, or other incentives could be granted to businesses that employ technologies that demonstrate an ability to reduce food waste by at least 10%.
Support Research and Development of Upcycled Foods - [Federal, State, Local; Regulatory]
Action Areas |
Creating new food products out of what are currently byproducts can require significant research and development for both the products themselves as well as the equipment to create them. Federal, state, and local governments can provide grants for testing out new technologies, procedures or techniques to utilize upcycled ingredients, and marketing and supply chain needs.
Improvements to Tax Laws
Alternative Tax Credits for Food Donation by Farmers – [Federal, State; Legislative]
Action Areas |
The existing federal enhanced tax deduction for food donations is not well-suited to farmers and often is not claimed by them, as many farmers operate at low profit margins and do not make enough income to claim a tax deduction. Further, the calculation of the value of the deduction is very onerous for farmers. To incentivize farmers to donate their surplus food and offset some of the costs of donation, Congress could provide an alternative tax credit for farmers instead of the existing enhanced deduction. States can also enact state-level tax credits for food donation, as exist already in about a dozen states.
Expand Federal Food Donation Enhanced Tax Deduction or create State-Level Tax Incentive for Non-Profit Sales and Transportation Services – [Federal, State; Legislative]
Action Areas |
Under current law, in order for a donor to claim the federal enhanced deduction for food donation, donations must go to a non-profit organization that does not charge the end recipient for the food, thus excluding tax deductions for social supermarkets that sell donated food at an extremely discounted price, or food recovery organizations that charges $1 to recipients to help offset the costs of home delivery of donated foods. Expanding the federal enhanced tax deduction (or creating new state-level credits or deductions) to cover donations to the ultimate recipient at a deeply reduced price would help incentivize innovation in food recovery and donation. In addition, expanding the deduction (or creating new state-level credits or deductions) to cover transport services would help overcome one of the most expensive barriers to food recovery. These incentives could be provided at the federal or state level.
Expanded Food Donation Policies
Expand Farm to Food Bank Programs – [Federal; Legislative]
Action Areas |
To reduce the financial barrier of farmers donating food, governments should set aside funds to cover the harvesting, processing, packaging, and transportation costs of donating agricultural products to food banks. Federally, Congress could continue the Farm to Food Bank Program (FTFB), authorized for $4 million/year in the 2018 Farm Bill as part of the Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP), increase the funding for the program, and waive the state fund matching requirement. States can look to the Pennsylvania Agricultural Surplus System (PASS) as a model.
Clarify Guidance On Food Safety For Donations - [Federal, State, Local; Legislative, Regulatory]
Action Areas |
U.S. federal food safety legislation and regulations developed by FDA and USDA generally do not mention the food safety practices that should be followed for food donations, though as of 2023, the FDA Food Code now specifies that food donation is legal. This leads to confusion and a matrix of varying rules in different states and localities. These laws could be updated to feature donation-specific chapters, on topics such as temperature, transportation, and labeling of donated foods. Additionally, FDA and USDA could expand guidance to states and localities on food safety for donated food, including an update to the FDA Food Code to improve state restaurant and retail food safety and ease the process for state regulators to identify how the Food Code and other food safety laws apply to donations. In addition or in the alternative, state and local governments could also provide guidance or regulations to clarify relevant, donation-specific food safety requirements.
Strengthen Liability Protections for Food Donations - [Federal, State; Legislative, Regulatory]
Action Areas |
In order to encourage food donation, state legislatures could strengthen liability protections for food donation by broadening protections to include food items with past quality date labels and regardless of compliance with regulations on the quality or labeling of food, or state and federal agencies could conduct education campaigns on donation liability protection for potential food donors and food recovery organizations.
Require Government Agencies and Their Contractors To Report Food Donations - [Federal, State; Legislative]
Action Areas |
The existing Federal Food Donation Act requires federal agencies to encourage federal contractors to donate excess food, yet does not stipulate that agency food donations be tracked or monitored in any way. Congress could amend the Act to add a reporting requirement, in order to incentivize more food donation. Additionally, Congress could amend the Act to require covered contracts to include language mandating that agency contractors take steps to donate excess food by creating a written agreement with a food recovery organization.
Consumer Education
Require Standardized Date Labels - [Federal, State; Legislative, Regulatory]
Action Areas |
Voluntary initiatives in the U.S. have coalesced around “BEST if Used By” as the term for date labels indicating food’s peak quality and “USE By” for labels intended to indicate safety. This standardization only works, however, if there is full adoption across the industry. To ensure that occurs, Congress (or state governments) could require standardization by limiting date labeling language on all products to those two options. In addition, governments could expressly permit the donation of food after the peak quality date and promote consumer education and awareness on the meaning of date labels.
Support Food Waste Reduction and Recovery Programs in Schools – [Federal, State, Local; Legislative, Regulatory]
Action Areas |
Schools could implement food waste and recovery measures with funding for food storage facilities, on-site composting facilities, share tables, the administration of food donation programs, and educational programming. Federal, state, or local governments could award grants on a competitive basis to schools to conduct food waste audits and to implement such reforms.
Implement School Lunch Changes - [Federal, State, Local; Legislative, Regulatory]
Action Areas |
A few changes to the format of school meal programs are proven to lead to more food being eaten, and thus less food going to waste during school meals. Longer lunch periods provide students enough time to select and eat their meals and thus waste less food. Shifting lunch time to occur after recess has been shown to increase the likelihood of students making healthier choices and reducing food waste by 30%. The "Offer Versus Serve" (OVS) meal reimbursement model decreases waste by not forcing students to take items they do not plan to eat. Under USDA regulations, OVS is optional in elementary and middle schools but required in high schools. The federal government, or state or local governments, can reduce plate waste by incentivizing schools to implement OVS for all grade levels and mandating longer lunch periods and recess before lunch.
Fund or Implement Consumer Education Campaigns - [Federal, State, Local; Legislative, Regulatory]
Action Areas |
Households are the biggest source of food waste in the U.S., yet American consumers perceive themselves as wasting little, with nearly three-quarters reporting that they discard less food than the average American. Given this lack of awareness, education campaigns on food waste are critical. Rather than creating multiple campaigns, the federal government could create a single campaign that can be used by state and local governments, businesses, and community organizations so that consumers receive the same message from multiple channels.
Policy in Action
In early July 2020, Vermont banned all household food waste from entering landfills. The state policy was the first of its kind in the country and serves as an example for the considerations needed for future implementation. Since then, other states including California, Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington, have implemented similar laws.
Research conducted by the University of Vermont revealed that although over 70% of Vermonters compost or divert food waste to animal feed, few are willing to pay for curbside composting pick-up. Many open to curbside pick-up reside in densely populated areas, while those living in rural areas are likely already managing their own food waste without the need for expensive compost pick-ups.
The research suggests that developing effective municipal food waste laws requires an in-depth understanding of the existing behaviors of constituents and the geographic, economic, political, and cultural landscape of the community to create lasting change. Education, outreach, and infrastructure to increase household food waste reduction can have significant effects.
Policy Finder
Public policy at the federal, state, and municipal levels can offer opportunities to accelerate large-scale food waste reduction. The Food Waste Policy Finder – developed by ReFED and the Harvard Law School Food Law and Policy Clinic to provide an overview of current federal and state policies related to food waste – depicts the existing policy landscape, while highlighting best-practice legislation in order to inform the continued development and implementation of sound food waste policy.
Our Newest Innovation
ReFED Insights Engine
ReFED Insights Engine is an online data center designed to serve as the next generation of data, insights, and guidance on U.S. food waste. With more granular data, more extensive analysis, more customized views, and the ability to be updated regularly, we see this tool as laying the foundation for action around our 2030 national goal to reduce food waste by 50 percent.
ReFED offers a range of solutions for organizations to advance their own food waste initiatives. Our interactive tools, reports and strategic solutions can help your team get started.