Reducing Emissions by Reducing Food Waste

Reduce and Reuse: How to Cut Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Building Materials, Plastics, and Food

Find out more about the briefings in this series below:

Building Materials: From Production to Reuse

The Climate Consequences of Plastics

Reducing Emissions by Reducing Food Waste

The Environmental and Energy Study Institute (EESI) invites you to view a briefing series about the climate impacts of producing building materials, plastics, and food. Panelists explained the upstream greenhouse gas emissions generated from the production of these materials and discussed solutions designed to reduce those emissions at scale.

While composting is a solution for downstream food waste management, upstream reduction of food waste and food waste diversion can be the first steps to reduce emissions and resources unnecessarily used across the sector. Panelists discussed some strategies available to policymakers that could bolster food waste reduction and diversion efforts.

Highlights

 

KEY TAKEAWAYS

In November 2021, the Environmental Protection Agency released a new report, From Farm-to-Kitchen: The Environmental Impacts of U.S. Food Waste. They estimate the annual greenhouse gas emissions of food loss and waste to be equal to those of 42 coal-fired power plants and the annual water and energy used on wasted food to be enough to supply 50 million homes. The United States has a national goal that aligns with a U.N. goal to reduce food loss and waste by 50 percent by 2030. ReFED, a nonprofit seeking to end food waste in the United States, conducted an extensive analysis and found that it is possible to reach the 50 percent goal, but it will take an investment of about $14 billion annually, from the private and public sectors. ReFED estimates a return on investment of about $73 billion in net financial benefit. The United States would save four trillion gallons of water, reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 75 million tons, provide four billion meals to people in need, and create 51,000 jobs. According to the Global Food Donation Policy Atlas, there are six major areas of law that impact whether safe surplus food is donated or rescued or whether it goes to waste. These areas include food safety, date labeling, liability, tax incentives and barriers, requirements and penalties, and government grants and incentives. Tools for policymakers seeking to reduce food waste include the ReFED Insights Engine, an interactive tool that allows one to explore solutions by priority area; The Food Law and Policy Clinic’s U.S. Food Waste Policy Finder, a database of state policies; and the U.S. Food Loss and Waste Policy Action Plan.

 

Rep. Julia Brownley (D-Calif.)

• Nearly half of all food produced in the United States is lost or wasted, which means an estimated $400 billion is spent on growing, processing, transporting, storing, and disposing of food that is never consumed. To make matters worse, food waste is a major contributor to climate change. Landfills are the third largest source of methane in the United States and food is the single largest product sitting in landfills.
• As a member of the Select Committee on the Climate Crisis, Rep. Brownley has introduced two bills to address these issues.
  • The Zero Food Waste Act (H.R.4444) would create a new Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) grant program to help communities identify food waste mitigation projects and strategies.
  • The Cultivating Organic Matter through the Promotion of Sustainable Techniques Act (COMPOST Act) (S.2388) would add composting as a conservation practice under the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) conservation programs.
• The House-passed Build Back Better Act (H.R.5376) would provide $190 million for investments in waste reduction infrastructure and incentives, with a focus on low-income and underserved communities. The bill also includes $30 million for schools to be able to reduce food waste while ensuring that children have access to fresher and more nutritious meals.
• The House-passed FY2022 appropriations bills include language directing USDA’s Natural Resources Conservation Service to fund more community compost and food waste reduction projects.

Dana Gunders, Executive Director, ReFED

• ReFED is a national nonprofit dedicated to reducing food loss and waste through three main pillars of work:
  • Providing data to highlight inefficiencies and opportunities.
  • Bringing in more capital—private, philanthropic, and public—to foster innovation and high-impact initiatives.
  • Acting as a hub and connector by hosting an annual summit on waste every year and running the Food Waste Action Network.
• In 2019, about 35 percent of all food in the United States went unsold or uneaten, the vast majority of which went to landfills or other waste destinations. The value of that wasted food is estimated at $408 billion, or two percent of U.S. GDP.
• ReFED estimates the footprint of wasted food to be about four percent of all U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, 14 percent of all freshwater use, and 18 percent of croplands—taking into account what it takes to grow, harvest, cool, transport, store, transport again, store again, cook, and serve the food. Food is the number one product entering landfills today.
• In November 2021, the EPA released a new report, From Farm-to-Kitchen: The Environmental Impacts of U.S. Food Waste. They estimate the annual greenhouse gas emissions of food loss and waste to be equal to those of 42 coal-fired power plants and the annual water and energy used on wasted food to be enough to supply 50 million homes. In land area, the amount of food wasted would cover both California and New York.
•  At the same time, one in eight Americans are considered food insecure. The quantity of food that is wasted is vastly more than what is needed to provide all food-insecure Americans with a full diet.
• Food surplus occurs all across the supply chain, with households being the largest contributor, then consumer-facing businesses, followed by farms.
• ReFED conducted an analysis going back to 2010. Its estimates show that surplus food consistently increased until 2016, and then it began to level off. That corresponds to when businesses and others started to pay more attention to this issue. Looking at the numbers per capita, food waste has decreased by about two percent. That is slightly good news, and suggests the United States is likely past peak waste.
• However, a two percent reduction gets us nowhere near achieving our goal. The United States has a national goal that aligns with a U.N. goal to reduce food loss and waste by 50 percent by 2030.
• The EPA created the Food Recovery Hierarchy, which prioritizes actions for food waste prevention, similar to the Reduce-Reuse-Recycle mantra for materials.
• How do we reach this goal of reducing food waste by 50 percent by the end of the decade? ReFED conducted an extensive analysis and found that it is possible to reach that 50 percent number, but it will take an investment of about $14 billion annually.
• ReFED estimates a return on investment of about $73 billion in net financial benefit. The United States would save four trillion gallons of water, reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 75 million tons, provide four billion meals to people in need, and create 51,000 jobs.
• The money required to fund this effort will have to come from multiple sources. ReFED recommends that 50 percent of the investment should come from the business sector, which can invest in new software and updated waste management processes.
•  Although the largest portion of money needs to come from businesses, there is an important role for government, through project finance, tax incentives, and grants. Federal funding is critical for unlocking bottlenecks and de-risking innovation.
• What needs to be done? ReFED’s cost-benefit analysis looked at 82 solutions and organized them into seven action areas. These action areas will allow the food system to focus its efforts on the prevention, rescue, and recycling of food that would otherwise be wasted. The action areas are:
  • To optimize the harvest. This entails reducing production to match consumption, and then making sure to harvest everything that is produced.
  • To enhance product distribution. This requires airtight distribution to avoid losing product as it is traveling and being stored across the country and around the world.
  • To refine product management. Use new tools to help match supply and demand. There will always be a surplus, so there is a need to make sure there are alternative marketplaces as well.
  • To maximize product utilization. Whether you are a food manufacturer or an individual in your home, use the entirety of whichever product you have in hand.
  • To reshape customer environments. We need to shift our culture to encourage less waste.
  • To strengthen food rescue. Only three percent of all surplus food is currently being donated.
  • To recycle anything remaining. There are many ways to recycle food, including creating animal feed out of food scraps and composting.
• ReFED Insights Engine is an interactive knowledge hub for food loss and waste. It is a fun tool that allows you to explore the top solutions. Because the best solutions depend on what your priority is—such as economics or greenhouse gas emissions—you can specify which impact area is most important to you and the tool will show you the most effective solutions for that goal.

Emily Broad Leib, Director, Food Law and Policy Clinic, Center for Health Law and Policy Innovation, Harvard Law School

• The Food Law and Policy Clinic (FLPC) works directly with clients and communities to champion community-led food system change, reduction in food waste, healthy food access, and equity and sustainability in food production.
• FLPC often helps other organizations understand the law and the systemic barriers that can be addressed through policy change.
• Food waste and food recovery is the largest area of work that FLPC does because the law impacts food waste in many different ways. Food is heavily regulated at all stages of the supply chain. Sometimes food is wasted either because of confusion over those regulations or because of the extra costs involved in getting food passed along and diverted. This means the law can sometimes act as a disincentive or cause confusion. On the other hand, this presents an opportunity to create policies that can provide incentives or drive changes in habits.
• At the state level, FLPC is working on recommendations for gleaning (i.e., the collection of surplus produce from farms that has not been harvested for commercial sale).
• FLPC does bill tracking and maintains the U.S. Food Waste Policy Finder, a database of state policies.
• At the global level, FLPC is running a project to compare laws on food donation across different countries. This is the Global Food Donation Policy Atlas, which is a partnership between FLPC and the Global FoodBanking Network. An online map compares and contrasts the laws of different countries.
• According to the Global Food Donation Policy Atlas, there are six major areas of law that impact whether safe surplus food is donated or rescued or whether it goes to waste. These areas include food safety, date labeling, liability, tax incentives and barriers, requirements and penalties, and government grants and incentives.
• In 2021, FLPC partnered with ReFED, the Natural Resources Defense Council, and the World Wildlife Fund to put out the U.S. Food Loss and Waste Policy Action Plan that called on both Congress and the Administration to address food waste and increase food recovery and diversion. There are now over 60 different signatories, including nongovernmental organizations, state and local governments, and private companies. They are coalescing around these key policies:
  • Increase funding to states and localities to support waste reduction policies.
  • Enable the donation of surpluses.
  • Support the Federal Interagency Food Loss and Waste Collaboration, a cross-agency collaboration between the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the Food and Drug Administration, and the Environmental Protection Agency.
  • Educate and activate consumers. Households are one of the biggest sources of waste.
  • Standardize national data labeling.
• The U.S. federal government does not have a definition or requirements for date labels, with the exception of infant formula. In the absence of any federal law, more than 40 states regulate date labels, and 20 states restrict the sale or donation of food after the labeled date. More than 90 percent of consumers believe that these dates are safety indicators, so the majority of consumers throw food away after that date. Most of these labels indicate peak quality, according to the companies. It is not possible to put a date based on safety for most foods, because most foods do not have a predictable date at which they become unsafe. They will start to spoil, but people will notice that they are spoiling.
• Standardizing date labels is one of the most cost-effective opportunities for reducing food waste because there are already labels on so many foods. Changing them to be standard and educating people on the change could save a significant amount of food that is currently wasted, bring savings to households, and would be inexpensive to implement.
• The Consumer Brands Association and Food Marketing Institute partnered to develop the Voluntary Product Code Dating Initiative, with which many large companies in the United States are now in compliance. The initiative recommends that food labeled for freshness or quality should be labeled with a “Best If Used By” date, and foods that pose an increased risk after the date are marked with a “Use By” date.
  • More than half of U.S. states have laws conflicting with the voluntary initiative for at least one category of food products. This has stymied the ability to have standard labels on a voluntary basis.
• The Codex Alimentarius Commission has a set of recommendations for countries. It matches well with what FLPC has called for in the United States, and it would be similar to the Voluntary Product Code Dating Initiative: one standard “Use By” label for safety and one standard “Best If Used By” label for quality, while also allowing for donation of food past a date that is freshness- or quality-based.
• The United States has the strongest liability protection for food donations in the world, the Bill Emerson Good Samaritan Food Donation Act (P.L. 104-210). It protects donors and nonprofits that distribute food when they give it to people in need for free.
  • More than 50 percent of companies say that they still do not donate food because of fears of liability, so one challenge is a lack of awareness. Another challenge is that after Congress passed this act, no regulation or clear guidance was created to help interpret the terms. It has never been used in court, which should bring some comfort to companies. But because there has not been any interpretation, lots of questions remain.
  • The other issue is that the protection is limited. For example, if a company donates directly to those in need, they would not be protected. They also would not be protected if they give to a nonprofit that does not give the food away for free.
• There are eight states and about 10 major cities that have some restriction on food going to the landfill. For example, Massachusetts prohibits companies from sending more than half a ton of food to landfills per week, which was recently reduced from one ton per week. In California, there was already a requirement to divert food from landfills, and they have now implemented a requirement for 20 percent of edible food to be donated.
• State and local governments know what is going to work best for them. These policies are all crafted differently, and many policymakers have taken in input when writing the regulations. The problem is that implementing the policies can be expensive—it costs a lot to plan, implement, raise awareness, and enforce policies, and to support businesses making the transition. There is an opportunity for the federal government to provide support. The Zero Food Waste Act is one opportunity to support states and localities in finding the policy that works best for them.
• FLPC tracks trending issues in state legislation. Last year, the biggest areas were tax incentives and liability. This year, the top issue areas in state legislation are organic waste bans and waste penalties.

 

Q&A

 

How could the federal government be supportive to standardize and close the gaps in state policies regarding food waste?

Gunders: The straightforward and realistic answer is funding—provide funding to states and local governments that are doing innovative things. And of course, the state and local governments are all watching each other, so a handful of successful programs can travel across the country relatively quickly. The less realistic answer is to implement a national ban on food in landfills. It is something that has been done across Europe. In places that do this, not only does it get the food out of landfills, but it also increases donation rates. It helps drive businesses to prevent waste as well.

Broad Leib: My sense as a lawyer is that it would be legal for the federal government to set a national ban on food in landfills, but it would be tricky because states and localities are the ones that take the lead on waste and landfilling. But right now, it is easier to give money to states and localities and say you can only have this money if you implement one of these best practices or policies.

On some of the liability protection issues, we have seen innovation in lots of states that now offer protection where food is donated for free to a nonprofit and the nonprofit can either give it away for free or sell it at a low cost, which helps provide innovative models. On the flip side, there are issues like date labeling where state variability makes no sense. If there is a scientific reason to use date labels, then all of the policies should follow the science. ReFED tries to show the places where having a state policy is a negative versus where having a state policy can build on top of a federal floor. Date labeling or restrictions on feeding scraps to animals are areas where state policies make things more restrictive and can lead to more food being wasted.

 

From a climate perspective, what are the biggest bang-for-your-buck changes that could be made in food policy?

Broad Leib: It is hard to measure prevention of food waste, so that is a great place to invest.

Gunders: From a policy perspective, probably the best bang for your buck is supporting the state and local governments like we just talked about. ReFED’s analysis shows that the biggest bang for your buck comes from big consumer efforts. For example, reducing portion sizes, trying to educate consumers on this issue, and giving them tools. If you can get to all those households and they reduce their waste by even one percent, that adds up to be significant. The caveat with that is it needs to be a long-term effort, it cannot be for just one year.

 

What are the environmental and climate justice concerns involved in food waste? What policies might help us make progress?

Gunders: Providing more food to the emergency food system is an important way to address the surface of injustice, but it does not get to the root cause of food insecurity. It allows lower income people to spend money on other things, and not spend it on food. That is an important role that food donation plays. Beyond that, there are some things to be aware of, like how a lot of landfills and proposed composting sites are in low-income neighborhoods.

Broad Leib: In the food system in general, the benefits and the burdens are not shared equally. A lot of that is economic, but it happens on racial and ethnic grounds as well. It is a burden for those who live next to landfills and food production sites that are noxious, and then the benefits are reaped by larger companies that are doing really well. Any way that we are being more efficient with our food system, we are also reducing some of the burdens on communities that are nearby. In the bigger climate justice picture, food waste is a big contributor to greenhouse gas emissions and there is a huge injustice in terms of who is burdened by climate change impacts. The Zero Food Waste Act does have a provision for increased funding for marginalized communities—making sure that investments in new infrastructure, composting, digesters, food recovery infrastructure, and donation infrastructure are equally available to the communities that are burdened right now.

 

What are some of the innovations that you see on the horizon that make you optimistic about our ability to reduce food waste? And how can policymakers support these innovations?

Gunders: I would love to see more incentives for innovation. I am excited about machine learning applied to data in a new way that is allowing the whole system to get more precise about how food moves around, when it is used, where it goes, and how much to order, as well as being able to alert the food donation world when there is a donation available. A lot of this stuff is last minute and unexpected. We have many solutions in our playbook that are showing great results. The policy play would be a mechanism to unlock an ENERGY STAR-type of certification that could then unlock funding.

Broad Leib: There are two sides in terms of innovation. One is supporting more innovation with more funding. We have made recommendations for the Farm Bill, for example, and other areas where investment could bring those innovations forward. Once we know what works, it is about figuring out the incentives for companies to use those technologies or mechanisms. There is a great tax incentive for donations that works well for large companies, but it does not work at all for farmers or small businesses that do not make enough for a deduction to benefit them. The federal government can create alternatives, in particular for farms that produce the freshest, healthiest foods. Thinking back to the equity question, any food on a farm that is getting tilled under that could have gone to people in need is a real waste.

Compiled by Alison Davis and edited for clarity and length. This is not a transcript.