DOCSLIB.ORG

January 2020 Westchester County Food Waste Study

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
January 2020 Westchester County Food Waste Study Memorandum Department of Environmental Facilities George Latimer County Executive Vincent Kopicki, P.E. Commissioner DATE: January 27, 2020 TO: Hon. George Latimer, County Executive CC: Joan McDonald, Director of Operations Peter McCartt, Director of Sustainability Aviva Meyer, Assistant to the County Executive, Public Health & Infrastructure FROM: Vincent F. Kopicki, P.E., Commissioner Louis J. Vetrone, Esq., Deputy Commissioner Melissa-Jean Rotini, Esq., Director of Environmental Management Operations RE: Food Waste Study: Report and Initiatives The Food Waste Study commissioned by the County has been completed. The scope of the project included a review of applicable technologies, and sought recommendations as to which technologies would best suit the needs of the County, its municipalities, residents, and environmental goals. The resultant report, completed by Woodard & Curran, made mid-term recommendations for handling food waste. The mid-term recommendations are for co-digestion of food waste at an existing County water recovery facility, and/or a small-scale anaerobic digester co-located at the Wheelabrator facility in Peekskill. The long-term recommendation is for a dedicated anaerobic digester facility to be located within the County, likely achieved through a public-private partnership. As the Report focused primarily on mid and long-term solutions, DEF has developed and recommends the following immediate and short-term proposals. Additionally, the County established a Food Scrap Work Group with community stakeholders to develop short-term proposals for municipal food scrap handling. The Work Group proposed a pilot program to determine the feasibility of accepting municipally collected food scraps at the Yonkers Transfer Station. That pilot program is currently being established. DEF Food Scrap Delivery and Transportation Program In an effort to allow all Refuse Disposal District #1 municipalities to participate in food scrap recycling, irrespective of budgetary constraints of the municipality, DEF proposes the County initiate a Food Scrap Delivery and Transportation Program (“FSDTP”) with a private hauler. Under FSDTP, the County would issue a request for proposals for a licensed carting company to provide: (1) pick-up of source-separated food scraps collected at municipal drop-off programs; (2) a facility where municipal food scraps can be consolidated and where municipalities operating curbside collection programs can deliver food scraps; and (3) transport of consolidated municipal food scraps to a food waste recycling facility. The FSDTP would allow District municipalities to initiate food scrap collection programs, continue existing programs, and expand and enhance programs as their need, budget, and staffing permits. It is anticipated that the County would be able to offer the program to participating municipalities at a subsidized rate similar to the current solid waste disposal fee ($29.28/ton), which would result in a considerable savings for the municipalities. District municipalities would have the option to enter into an IMA to participate in the FSDTP, which would be a voluntary program. To expedite the start of the contract and to further reduce costs for District municipalities, DEF would make available to the winning bidder a specialized 75 cubic yard tractor-trailer to prevent leaking during transport of the food scraps. The loads being delivered to composting facilities would be consolidated to minimize greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. It is anticipated that only 1-2 trips per week would be necessary to transport the food scraps from existing municipal programs to an organics recycler. DEF believes that the FSDTP could be established and operational in approximately six months. DEF Compost Site and Education Center As indicated in the Report, composting is best able to be used in-County on a local scale. Many municipalities have department of public works yards with adequate space for composting the food scraps produced within their borders. Local processing of the food scraps collected would reduce GHG emissions created by transporting food scraps to commercial composting facilities. Additionally, backyard composting is also possible in many areas of the County. The establishment of a small-scale Compost Site and Education Center (“CSEC”) would allow residents and District municipalities to learn about the benefits of composting, including the GHG emission savings when composting is local, and how to incorporate food scraps into existing yard waste composting programs. As an active small-scale composting site, residents and District municipalities could observe the methods, space requirements, and various levels of equipment that can be used in composting. The CSEC would help to make local municipal and at-home composting accessible to municipalities and residents. DEF believes that the CSEC could be established and operational within 12-15 months. Under both the FSDTP and CSEC, DEF Recycling Office staff would provide a fact sheet and support for municipalities in applying for State Grant Matching Funds to offset the cost of the items necessary for District municipalities to establish drop-off food scrap collection and/or composting programs. 2 FOOD WASTE STUDY REPORT 800 Westchester Avenue | Suite N507 Rye Brook, New York 10573 214642.00 800.807.4080 Westchester County Woodard & Curran Engineering P.A. P.C. COMMITMENT & INTEGRITY DRIVE RESULTS January 21, 2020 214642.00 Westchester County Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................................... 1 1. PROJECT BACKGROUND AND INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................ 1-1 2. FOOD WASTE QUANTITY ESTIMATES ........................................................................................................ 2-1 2.1 Commercial Food Waste Quantity Estimates ................................................................................. 2-1 2.1.1 Comparative Analysis and Validation .................................................................................. 2-2 2.2 Residential Food Waste Quantity Estimates .................................................................................. 2-3 3. FOOD WASTE AVOIDANCE AND DIVERSION ............................................................................................. 3-1 3.1 Resources for Commercial Food Waste Disposal Avoidance ........................................................ 3-1 3.2 Food Waste Recovery Potential in Westchester County ................................................................ 3-6 4. FOOD WASTE PROCESSING TECHNOLOGIES .......................................................................................... 4-1 4.1 Food Waste Technology Analysis .................................................................................................. 4-1 4.1.1 Open Windrow Composting ................................................................................................. 4-1 4.1.2 In-Vessel Composting .......................................................................................................... 4-2 4.1.3 Anaerobic Digestion ............................................................................................................. 4-4 4.1.4 Hybrid System (Anaerobic Digestion with Composting)....................................................... 4-5 4.1.5 Wastewater Treatment Plant Co-Digestion .......................................................................... 4-5 4.2 Greenhouse Gas Emission Considerations .................................................................................... 4-7 5. CURRENT FOOD WASTE MANAGEMENT PRACTICES .............................................................................. 5-1 5.1 Residential Food Waste Recycling Participation ............................................................................ 5-1 5.2 Commercial Food Waste Management .......................................................................................... 5-3 6. FOOD WASTE PROCESSING AND RECYCLING FACILITY SOLUTIONS .................................................. 6-1 6.1 Factors Considered in the Analysis of Potential Solutions ............................................................. 6-1 6.2 Mid-Term Solutions ........................................................................................................................ 6-3 6.2.1 Co-Digestion at Peekskill’s WRRF ....................................................................................... 6-3 6.2.2 Anaerobic Digester Co-Location at Peekskill’s Wheelabrator WTE Facility ......................... 6-6 6.3 Long-Term Solution ........................................................................................................................ 6-7 6.3.1 Development of County Owned Property ............................................................................ 6-7 7. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ANALYSIS ............................................................................................... 7-1 8. INTERIM MEASURES CONSIDERATIONS .................................................................................................... 8-1 9. OVERALL PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE .............................................................................. 9-1 9.1 Interim Solution: Transfer Station Accommodations for Food Scraps ...........................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Commodity Specific Food Safety Guidelines for the Production and Harvest of Lettuce and Leafy Greens
    1 2 3 4 5 6 COMMODITY SPECIFIC FOOD SAFETY GUIDELINES FOR THE 7 PRODUCTION AND HARVEST OF LETTUCE AND LEAFY GREENS 8 VERSION 11 - ARIZONA 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 SEPTEMBER 14, 2018 38 39 Authors Note: This document reflects Commodity Specific Food Safety Guidelines for the 40 Production and Harvest of Leafy Greens for Arizona. It is based on the Commodity 41 Specific Food Safety Guidelines for the Production and Harvest of Leafy Greens 42 accepted for use by the California Leafy Greens Handler Marketing Agreement and 43 contains minor, non-substantive modifications recommended by the Arizona Leafy 44 Greens Marketing Committee. Arizona law supersedes any requirements in this 45 document that may be in conflict. 46 Table of Contents 47 48 Glossary 3 49 Acronyms and Abbreviations 9 50 List of Appendices 10 51 Introduction 11 52 Scope 12 53 1. Purpose 15 54 2. Issue: General Requirements 15 55 3. Issue: Records 15 56 4. Issue: Personnel Qualifications and training 16 57 5. Issue: Environmental Assessments 18 58 6. Issue: Water 19 59 7. Issue: Water Usage to Prevent Product Dehydration 21 60 8. Issue: Soil Amendments 29 61 9. Issue: Nonsynthetic Crop Treatments 38 62 10. Issue: Harvest Equipment, Packing Materials, and Buildings 42 63 11. Issue: Harvest Personnel - Direct Contact with Soil and Contaminants 64 during Harvest 45 65 12. Issue: Field and Harvest Personnel - Transfer of Human Pathogens by 66 Workers 45 67 13.
    [Show full text]
  • Identifying the Sustainable Niche for Anaerobic Digestion in a Low Carbon Future
    Identifying the Sustainable Niche for Anaerobic Digestion in a Low Carbon Future David Styles1,2, Jalil Yesufu1, Prysor Williams1, Martin Bowman3 & Karen Luyckx3 Bangor University & Feedback Global Affiliations: 1School of Natural Sciences, Bangor University, Bangor, Wales; 2University of Limerick, Limerick, Ireland; 3Feedback Global, London. Contents 1. Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 3 Circularity & climate stabilisation ....................................................................................................... 3 Food waste .......................................................................................................................................... 3 Anaerobic digestion ............................................................................................................................ 4 Low carbon energy .............................................................................................................................. 5 Assessing environmental sustainability .............................................................................................. 5 2. Methodology ................................................................................................................................... 8 Goal and scope .................................................................................................................................... 8 Impact categories ...............................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Nevada Food for People, Not Landfill Program 2020 Annual Report
    Nevada Food for People, Not Landfill Program 2020 Annual Report Nevada Department of Health and Human Services 2 CONTENTS Background________________________________________________________________________3 Food Waste in the United States .................................................................................................. 3 Food Waste in Nevada ................................................................................................................ 4 Food for People, Not Landfills Program Update___________________________________________ 5 Food Rescue Categories ............................................................................................................... 5 Food Rescue Data ........................................................................................................................ 6 Program Seal .............................................................................................................................. 8 Next Steps_________________________________________________________________________9 3 BACKGROUND Food Waste in the United States The United States Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Economic Research Service (ERS) defines food loss/waste as the edible amount of food, postharvest, available for human consumption that is not consumed for any reason.1 According to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), an estimated 63.1 million tons of food waste was generated in the commercial, institutional, and residential sectors in 2018, which is 21.6% of total municipal
    [Show full text]
  • Tackling Food Waste in Cities: a Policy and Program Toolkit
    With generous support from: FEBRUARY 2019 R: 19-01-B REPORT TACKLING FOOD WASTE IN CITIES: A POLICY AND PROGRAM TOOLKIT AUTHORS Yerina Mugica, Natural Resources Defense Council Terra Rose, independent consultant CONTRIBUTING EDITOR Darby Hoover, Natural Resources Defense Council ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This guide was created as part of the Food Matters project, an initiative developed by the Natural Resources Defense Council. Thank you to The Rockefeller Foundation whose financial support and thought partnership has made this project possible. Yerina Mugica of NRDC and Terra Rose (independent consultant) are the primary authors. Critical support and input were also provided by Darby Hoover. The guide also reflects the original ideas and contributions of Jason Babbie, Elizabeth Balkan, JoAnne Berkenkamp, Margaret Brown, Yvette Cabrera, Catherine Cox-Blair, Dana Gunders, Maddie Keating, Andrea Spacht, and Sarah McKinstry-Wu from NRDC and Monica Munn from The Rockefeller Foundation. About NRDC The Natural Resources Defense Council is an international nonprofit environmental organization with more than 3 million members and online activists. Since 1970, our lawyers, scientists, and other environmental specialists have worked to protect the world’s natural resources, public health, and the environment. NRDC has offices in New York City, Washington, D.C., Los Angeles, San Francisco, Chicago, Montana, and Beijing. Visit us at nrdc.org. NRDC Chief Communications Officer:Michelle Egan NRDC Managing Directors of Communications: Lisa Goffredi and Jenny Powers NRDC Publications Director: Mary Annaïse Heglar NRDC Policy Publications Editor: Leah Stecher Cover image © Meredith Danberg-Ficarelli Design and Production: www.suerossi.com © Natural Resources Defense Council 2019 Letter from the Director ationwide, cities are seeking game-changing strategies to improve quality of life and achieve equitable outcomes.
    [Show full text]
  • 100% Natural! the Fastest Growing Category in Cat and Small Animal Litter & Bedding
    100% Natural! The fastest growing category in cat and small animal litter & bedding. GOING NATURAL is important… Important to: Your bottom line. Category growth. Your customer. Their pets and our planet. Equustock, LLC Natural Cat Litter and Small Animal Litter and Bedding With the recent transition of the Feline Pine cat litter pellet brand, we have experienced incredible interest in our natural line of litters and bedding. Large Retailers , US Distributors and International Distributors had begun to take notice of the natural litter trend, but with the legitimizing recognition from a traditional clay litter manufacturer the activity has exploded. The natural litter industry is still relatively young. Local and regional producers of materials that appear suitable for animal applications have surfaced as the industry begins to consolidate. Unfortunately, these single source producers can be damaging to the industry as a whole because of their lack of understanding of the category and the quality controls and processes necessary for animal litter applications. Equustock, LLC has been producing pine pellets, pine shavings and custom product blends for large animal use for over a decade and during this time we have produced product at several of our N. American plants as private label for other small animal product brands. We are armed with the manufacturing expertise to understand natural feedstock materials, regional variations of raw materials and the equipment necessary to produce the most consistent product possible throughout the country. With multiple plant locations, we are positioned to offer the lowest nationwide average of per bag cost of delivery. Our retailers and distributors can be very competitive and at the same time, offer the consumer a price point that will be necessary to sustain natural product interest during this current and likely long term economic environment.
    [Show full text]
  • Food Waste Management in the United States, 2014, December 2016
    Food Waste Management in the United States, 2014 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery December 2016 1. Food Waste Management 1.1 Introduction U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) characterizes the generation and management of municipal solid waste (MSW) in the Advancing Sustainable Materials Management: Facts and Figures report1 series. EPA researched and estimated the amount of MSW food waste donated, composted and used as animal feed in 2014. This document summarizes the data sources and methodology used to arrive at these estimates. EPA also reviewed anaerobic digestion of food waste and the management of the resulting digestate; however, there was not sufficient data to make numeric estimates of anaerobic digestion. 2. Food Donation 2.1 Introduction Each year, significant amounts of food products are donated by residents and commercial and institutional establishments (e.g., grocery stores, restaurants, hospitals) to local food banks and charities to feed people. EPA estimated these national food donations, which is the second step in EPA’s food recovery hierarchy depicted in Figure 1. A portion of these food donations divert food from the solid waste stream that would otherwise be managed through composting, anaerobic digestion, combustion with or without energy recovery or landfilling. Figure 1. EPA’s Food Recovery Hierarchy Differentiating data reported in the literature between food donation diversion (i.e., wholesome but not-for-retail food products diverted from the waste stream) and charitable food donations (i.e. food drives) of saleable products is often difficult. The latter does not result in diverted Food Waste Management, 2014 December 2016 Page 2 waste.
    [Show full text]
  • A Game Theoretic Framework for Surplus Food Distribution in Smart Cities and Beyond
    applied sciences Article A Game Theoretic Framework for Surplus Food Distribution in Smart Cities and Beyond Surja Sanyal 1,† , Vikash Kumar Singh 2,† , Fatos Xhafa 3,*,† , Banhi Sanyal 4,† and Sajal Mukhopadhyay 1,† 1 Department of Computer Science and Engineering, National Institute of Technology Durgapur, Durgapur 713209, West Bengal, India; [email protected] (S.S.); [email protected] (S.M.) 2 School of Computer Science and Engineering, VIT-AP University, Amaravati 522237, Andhra Pradesh, India; [email protected] 3 Department of Computer Science, Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya, 08034 Barcelona, Spain 4 Department of Computer Science and Engineering, National Institute of Technology Rourkela, Rourkela 769001, Odisha, India; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected] † These authors contributed to this work. Featured Application: This is a relatively less researched topic around the globe. Our research and the included algorithm will hugely benefit current and upcoming surplus food distribution activities, provide core support to existing and future food communities, as well as address the food insecurity and wastage issues of the world. Abstract: Food waste is currently a major challenge for the world. It is the precursor to several socioeconomic problems that are plaguing modern society. To counter and to, simultaneously, stand by the undernourished, surplus food redistribution has surfaced as a viable solution. Information and Communications Technology (ICT)-mediated food redistribution is a highly scalable approach Citation: Sanyal, S.; Kumar Singh, V.; and it percolates into the lives of the masses far better. Even if ICT is not brought into the picture, the Xhafa, F.; Sanyal, B.; Mukhopadhyay presence of food surplus redistribution in developing countries such as India is scarce and is limited S.
    [Show full text]
  • Business Guide to Managing Biosecurity Risks of Food Recycling
    BUSINESS GUIDE TO MANAGING BIOSECURITY RISKS OF FOOD RECYCLING IN AUSTRALIA Consumer demand and a sense of corporate responsibility have seen several food retailers and restaurants develop programs designed to minimise WHAT IS SWILL FEEDING? food waste. These programs sometimes include food recycling, or farmer programs, where food waste is provided to farmers for stock feed or composting. Swill, the traditional name for all prohibited The reduction of food waste is important for pig feed, is food waste containing meat or environmental, sustainability and other reasons, but any other mammalian products or by- this must be balanced with the potential risks to animal products, excluding Australian milk. This health posed by recycling certain types of food. also includes imported dairy products and any foods that have been in contact with Why do food retailers and restaurants meat. need to manage risks around food Swill feeding is the practise of feeding swill recycling and disposal? to pigs, including small ‘backyard’ pig herds Certain foods sourced through recycling programs can or pet pigs. pose a risk of the introduction of certain emergency Swill feeding is illegal in Australia as it can animal diseases (EADs). EADs such as foot-and-mouth cause outbreaks of serious animal diseases. disease (FMD) and classical and African swine fever The national ban on swill feeding to pigs is a are not presently found in Australia. Some recycled vital measure to prevent potentially foods could be a source of EADs if fed to pigs or contaminated swill from being eaten by ruminants (e.g. cattle, sheep, goats and deer).
    [Show full text]
  • Agricultural Waste Reduction
    AGRICULTURAL WASTE REDUCTION Thurston County Solid Waste Waste reduction, the combination of waste prevention and recycling efforts, makes good financial sense. In addition to financial advantages, waste prevention benefits the environment, benefits society, and your company establishes itself as a good community citizen, providing immeasurable, lasting rewards. Agricultural Waste Reduction Agricultural Waste Reduction TIPS FROM THURSTON COUNTY SOLID WASTE Waste reduction begins by understanding what is being purchased, how goods are used. It is then put to use by finding ways to eliminate, reduce, reuse, and recycle materials. A good strategy is to target the largest components in the waste stream, and implement the easy waste reduction steps first. Below are some ideas to help you identify waste reduction opportunities at your business. WASTE PREVENTION • Purchase items with recycled-content or refurbished parts. Pay attention to items used regularly like crates, cartons, bags, Gaylords and Gaylord liners, office and janitorial supplies. Many European and domestic plastics manufacturers are offering recycled- content crates. Ask vendors what they carry. • Use re-refined petroleum products. These products are less harmful for the environment. • Investigate using lube and hydraulic oils made from rapeseed oil and 100% vegetable oil; these products are often made in Sweden for the forest industry. They are biodegradable, non-toxic and have a higher rating for temperature and viscosity than petroleum products. • Use food by-products as an animal feed (check with local authorities to see if a permit is required). • Arrange for cooperative buying whenever possible. • Request recycled-content corrugated cardboard that delivers excellent wet strength performance. Often packaging products with higher recycled content aren’t as white, however purchasing them helps to assure that there will be a market for the cardboard that you recycle! • Evaluate your bottling operations for opportunities to reduce bottle waste.
    [Show full text]
  • Rescuing Food from the Organics Waste Stream to Feed the Food
    Sustainability 2015, 7, 4707-4726; doi:10.3390/su7044707 OPEN ACCESS sustainability ISSN 2071-1050 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability Article Rescuing Food from the Organics Waste Stream to Feed the Food Insecure: An Economic and Environmental Assessment of Australian Food Rescue Operations Using Environmentally Extended Waste Input-Output Analysis Christian John Reynolds *, Julia Piantadosi and John Boland Centre for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, the Barbara Hardy Institute, University of South Australia, Mawson Lakes Boulevard, Mawson Lakes, SA 5095, Australia; E-Mails: [email protected] (J.P.); [email protected] (J.B.) * Author to whom correspondence should be addressed; E-Mail: [email protected]; Tel.: +61-400-94-2636. Academic Editors: Kirrilly Thompson, Drew Dawson and Anne Sharp Received: 17 February 2015 / Accepted: 14 April 2015 / Published: 21 April 2015 Abstract: In this paper we investigate the economic and environmental efficiency of charities and NGO’s “rescuing” food waste, using a 2008 case study of food rescue organisations in Australia. We quantify the tonnages, costs, and environmental impact of food rescued, and then compare food rescue to other food waste disposal methods composting and landfill. To our knowledge this is the first manuscript to comprehend the psychical flows of charity within an Input-Output framework—treating the charity donations as a waste product. We found that 18,105 tonnes of food waste was rescued, and calculate that food rescue operations generate approximately six kilograms of food waste per tonne of food rescued, at a cost of US$222 per tonne of food rescued. This a lower cost than purchasing a tonne of comparable edible food at market value.
    [Show full text]
  • Summary of Wastewater Land Application in Kewaunee County
    Summary of Wastewater Land Application in Kewaunee County Wastewater includes industrial wastes, municipal waste/sludge, and septage waste. Applicable administrative codes: Chapter NR 113, SERVICING SEPTIC OR HOLDING TANKS, PUMPING CHAMBERS, GREASE INTERCEPTORS, SEEPAGE BEDS, SEEPAGE PITS, SEEPAGE TRENCHES, PRIVIES, OR PORTABLE RESTROOMS. Chapter NR 204, DOMESTIC SEWAGE SLUDGE MANAGEMENT. Chapter NR 214, LAND TREATMENT OF INDUSTRIAL LIQUID WASTES, BY−PRODUCT SOLIDS AND SLUDGES. Definition of terms: Industrial waste (per NR 214.03): . “By−product solids” means waste materials from the animal product or food processing industry including, but not limited to: remains of butchered animals, paunch manure and vegetable waste materials such as leaves, cuttings, peelings and actively fermenting sweet corn silage. “Liquid waste” means process wastewater and waste liquid products, including silage leachate, whey, whey permeate, whey filtrate, contact cooling water, cooling or boiler water containing water treatment additives, and wash water generated in industrial, commercial and agricultural operations which result in a point source discharge to a land treatment system. “Sludge” means the accumulated solids generated during the biological, physical or chemical treatment, coagulation or sedimentation of water or wastewater. Municipal waste (per NR 204.03): . “Sewage sludge” or “sludge” or “biosolids” means the solid, semi−solid or liquid residue generated during the treatment of domestic sewage in a treatment works. Sewage sludge includes scum or solids removed in primary, secondary or advanced wastewater treatment processes and material derived from sewage sludge. Sewage sludge does not include ash generated during the firing of a sewage sludge incinerator or grit and screenings generated during preliminary treatment of domestic sewage in a treatment works.
    [Show full text]
  • Reducing Food Waste in Massachusetts
    Reducing Food Waste in Massachusetts: Local Successes Informing Statewide Solutions In early 2016, after completing a statewide food system plan for Massachusetts, the Massachusetts Local Food Action Plan, a group of stakeholder organizations, formed the Massachusetts Food System Collabora- tive, a network of organizations and institutions dedicated to working toward an equitable and sustainable food system in the Commonwealth. The Collaborative leads campaigns that build the capacity of food-system stakeholders to advocate for policy recommendations in the plan. Reducing food waste is one of the goals of the plan, and has been one of our lead projects for several years. We have brought together food banks and pantries, farmers, compost and anaerobic digester operators, food-rescue organizations, regulators, and other stakeholders to develop a set of policy priorities to reduce food waste and divert edible surplus food to families in need and to advocate for those policies. This report is part of that effort. This report was made possible in part thanks to a grant provided by Whole Foods Market. Author: Brittany Peats. [email protected] www.mafoodsystem.org November 2019 Reducing Food Waste in Massachusetts: Local Successes Informing Statewide Solutions Contents Food Waste in Massachusetts . 1 Food Waste Policy and Public Sector Support . 4 Food Waste Reduction Efforts: Businesses, Nonprofits, and Institutions . 9 Food Waste Reduction Efforts: Public Sector . 20 Recommendations . 26 Conclusion . 32 Food Waste in Massachusetts ccording to the Natural Resources Defense Council, at least 40% of all the food in the US is wasted.1 In Massachusetts, food producers and consumers disposed of more than a million tons of Afood waste in 2016,2 representing a quarter of the waste stream.
    [Show full text]