State Organic Waste Bans Reduce Food Waste

Food is the most prevalent material disposed in municipal landfills and incinerators in the U.S., amounting to 24 percent of landfill contents. This is a significant climate issue because food decomposing in landfills generates methane, a greenhouse gas 80 times as powerful as carbon dioxide in the near term. Keeping food out of landfills is a critical strategy to protect our climate and to ensure that this valuable resource is directed to better use. At the state level, some of the most impactful food waste reduction policies we can pass are those that limit the amount of food and other organic waste that can be disposed in landfills or incinerators. Organic waste bans not only cut down harmful emissions, but also encourage food waste reduction efforts, like increased food donations from surplus food that would have otherwise been wasted.

We use the phrase "organic waste ban" in this blog to refer both to outright bans, in which organics are banned from entering landfills and incinerators (such as in Vermont's Food Scrap Ban), as well as mandatory organics recycling requirements for businesses (such as in Connecticut's Commercial Organics Recycling Law). The primary difference here is that while outright bans cover all generators, including the residential sector, mandatory organics recycling laws apply only to commercial generators meeting certain generation thresholds (e.g. eight cubic yards per week of organic waste). Both types of laws can include thresholds for implementation that change over time to incorporate more generators.

Since 2012, NRDC has been considered a national expert on food waste reduction. Today, we work at the federal, state, and local levels and with key partners to prevent food from going to waste, rescue and redistribute surplus food, and compost food scraps to help build healthy soil.

State policy is a central rung on the ladder of our theory of change. While waste is managed at the municipal level, cities and towns depend on favorable policy conditions at the state level to facilitate their work and stabilize the infrastructure necessary to operate beyond city borders. Additionally, state budgets, with support from federal dollars, can scale development of large infrastructure, pilot solutions across differing landscapes, and ensure businesses operate on a level playing field across state lines.

Policy infrastructure, including organic waste bans, can work in tandem with the development of physical infrastructure (like composting facilities) to manage the materials that otherwise would have gone to landfills or incinerators. Cities and companies are often reluctant to build new organics recycling facilities without a guarantee of a consistent supply of feedstock; organic waste bans can help incentivize this development. Some organic waste bans also include requirements for the donation of surplus food, which can help increase food donation. Generators might also be motivated to prevent waste to gain exemptions from compliance thresholds, with the additional benefit of paying less to manage waste by avoiding generating it in the first place.

There are currently ten states with organic waste bans (California, Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington). While most of these laws have only been in effect for a few years, there is already significant food waste reduction being reported. Just three years into its organic waste ban (which went into effect in 2020), Vermont saw a roughly 15 percent reduction in residential food waste landfill disposal. This is particularly impressive given that those three years represented the height of the COVID pandemic, which disrupted waste sorting, collection, and processing throughout the country.

As highlighted in Bans and Beyond: Designing and Implementing Organic Waste Bans and Mandatory Organics Recycling Laws, there are multiple benefits from implementing organic waste bans, including job creation, expansion of organics recycling collection and processing infrastructure, lower costs associated with sending material to landfill, and greenhouse gas reductions. Increasing the amount of surplus food rescued and redistributed can also be an overtly included goal and benefit. For example, California's goals in passing SB1383 in 2016 included reducing organic waste disposal statewide by 75 percent by 2025 and rescuing and redistributing 20 percent of currently disposed surplus food by 2025. Since implementing the law in January 2022, CalRecycle reports that:

• Nearly 80 percent of communities in California have instituted residential organics waste collection;
• 2 million tons of organic waste a year were cut from landfill disposal between 2018 to 2021 (before the law officially took effect);
• California now has 206 organic waste processing facilities (with 20 more under construction); and
• 217,042 tons of unsold food were rescued in 2023 (94 percent of the 2025 target).

California's 2025 waste composition study will lend even more insight to the progress of the law's implementation.

A recent study posited that organic waste bans have been unsuccessful, with the exception of Massachusetts, which saw a 13.2 percent reduction in disposed waste. However, this study assessed total disposed municipal solid waste, without separating out the organic fraction. A more accurate approach might be to assess the organic fraction of disposed waste; otherwise, there is an open question as to whether disposed waste composition may have changed over the years, meaning that the organic fraction of waste could actually have decreased while other material types increased. The study also did not incorporate data on the amount of organics recycled, the amount of food donated, or other measures to reflect what is actually happening with materials that were diverted from disposal.

Still, it is impressive that even with those shortcomings, Massachusetts is spotlighted as achieving successful reduction (again, in overall disposed waste, not specifically organic waste). Some of the factors the study identified as pertinent to the overall success of the Massachusetts law are worth noting, as these might help improve outcomes for other states with organic waste bans: affordability of compliance, regulatory simplicity, and strong enforcement and monitoring. These elements should be incorporated into organic waste bans, as should requirements for surplus food donation, phased-in thresholds for waste generation that lower over time to cover more generators, and plans for ongoing monitoring and reporting. A ban should also be contextualized within a suite of state policies and regulations providing outreach and education as well as funding for the expansion of organics recycling and food rescue infrastructure.

With food representing the largest portion of landfilled municipal solid waste in the U.S. and organics overall representing nearly half of all municipal solid waste generated, there is a tremendous need and opportunity to expand state-level organic waste bans. Deploying more centralized composting throughout the country alone has the potential to keep over 16 million tons per year of organic materials from being disposed. Adding other strategies such as source-separated anaerobic digestion, home and community composting, food rescue, and food waste prevention-all of which can be expanded through organic waste bans-would mean another 15 million tons per year diverted from disposal. Fortunately, there are tools available to help states adopt these policies, including the Zero Food Waste Coalition's State Policy Toolkit's section on organic waste bans and related state laws. The toolkit offers helpful tips and resources to craft a state-level organic waste ban, including model policy language. As the toolkit notes, "organic waste bans are one of the most effective tools policymakers have at their disposal to change the way businesses and consumers manage and value their organic waste."

Related Blogs