Food Policy

California's New Food Waste Law Is Backfiring

Compliance is proving to be expensive and confusing.


A California law that took effect this year and that was supposed to help the environment while combating hunger is instead causing chaos for food banks, businesses, and small cities and towns throughout the state.

The law, S.B. 1383, which took effect in January, "requires supermarkets and other big food providers to divert as much as a quarter of edible food now destined for dumps to food banks to feed the needy," the Los Angeles Times reported in December. "It tasks cities and counties with formulating local plans, with a statewide goal of recovering 20% of edible food by 2025," Reuters reported earlier this month. S.B. 1383 is the nation's first statewide law to require businesses to donate excess food to be eaten by hungry people. Compliance requirements, which will ultimately include fines, are being phased in. "First, large grocery stores and food wholesalers; later, restaurants and cafeterias will have to comply or face fines," ABC7 reported last week.

In addition to fighting hunger, the law was also intended to combat food waste—which has an outsized contribution to greenhouse gas emissions, as food sent to landfills belches methane, a far more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. The massive scale of food waste is an enormous problem. As I detail in my book Biting the Hands that Feed Us: How Fewer, Smarter Laws Would Make Our Food System More Sustainable, nearly 40 percent of all our food—roughly 40 million tons of it—goes to waste in the field, during processing, in transit, at the store, and/or on the plate. The value of that lost food totals more than $165 billion every year. Ten percent of the money Americans spend on food goes to waste. The environmental costs of that waste are colossal. Food waste is the third-leading contributor to atmospheric greenhouse gasses. And food that's wasted still uses the same inputs to grow—water, fertilizer, pesticides, fuel, wages—as food that's eaten. "Those resources are all used up whether a food is eaten or is left to rot in a field or landfill," I note in the book.

Giddy supporters have been busy touting the upside of California law. "This will reduce food waste and address food insecurity for millions of people," Alhambra Mayor Sasha Renée Pérez tweeted earlier this year. "California leads again!" Last month, San Diego's CBS affiliate reported the law had caused a dramatic jump in food donations there, calling the law "great news" because it means "more food going to residents of San Diego that might otherwise go hungry [and] that food won't have the opportunity to rot in a landfill and emit harmful greenhouse gasses in the process."

Yet multiple reports now highlight the fact that complying with the law is "proving easier said than done," ABC7 in Los Angeles reports. That's because grocers, restaurants, food banks, local governments, and others haven't "figure[d] out who is responsible for reclaiming [food] leftovers [under the law], and how to pay the costs of doing so." Those costs have only skyrocketed due to record gas prices. Given these challenges, it's "been hard for local food banks and small towns to implement [the law] due to climbing fuel costs and uncertainty over who pays for food recovery," Reuters notes.

While record fuel costs may have been difficult to predict, other cost increases had been expected under the law. "A survey by the League of California Cities found that most local governments expect refuse collection rates to increase less than 20%, with 1 in 5 cities saying they expect charges to go up more," the L.A. Times explained last year in a piece on the new law, which also contains requirements for setting aside compostable food waste at home. "Costa Mesa, an early adopter of curbside green recycling, estimates that over nine years, monthly rates will have risen a total of $6.10, to $24.10 a month, by 2023-24."

Despite rumors to the contrary, there are few barriers in place for businesses that want to donate leftover food to people in need and the organizations that aid them. The Bill Emerson Good Samaritan Act, signed into law by Pres. Bill Clinton more than 25 years ago, protects charitable individual and commercial food donors from most civil and criminal liability. 

Mandatory government rules for reducing or eliminating food waste ignore the fact that the government bears a great deal of responsibility for creating food waste in the first place: like the federally-backed industry group that sets tart cherry quotas, forcing farmers whose crops exceed the quota to trash the supposedly excess amount; or the terrible waste management contract Oakland signed in 2015 that made it cheaper for restaurants to throw food away rather than compost it. 

I bet California lawmakers meant well in passing the measure to combat food waste and hunger, but before they crafted yet another law that looks to be hurting the little guy—food banks, struggling businesses, small cities and towns in California, and people in need, in this case—they might've explored and addressed ways government itself causes or contributes to those same problems.

NEXT: Speaking Freely Through the Ages

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. How can composting food make less methane than burying food in a landfill for it to compost on its own?

    1. It doesn't, and won't, because in an actual facility the process would be monitored for stochiometric efficiency, and the released methane could be captured.

      So, "Notionally Well Intentioned California Laws Turns Out To Make Things Worse" would be a more accurate, if rather repetitious, headline.

      1. But the headline does have the advantage of being highly recyclable, so presumably California will still be happy.

        1. *sad chuckle*

          1. Home base cash creating on-line job to start out obtaining paid each month further $30k or additional online. Simply do that job partly time and build (res92) extra money from home. straightforward job.
            details on this page…

      2. I'm pretty sure that California has no requirement for the capture of Methane from landfills or composting.

        1. I'm sure it doesn't, but if that's one of their goals, it would be better achieved in a centralized facility. As rare as it is for me to utter that particular sentence. 😀

      3. Despite fallacious methane arguments, the single benefit to isolating food waste is the capacity for it to be recycled into fertilizer whereas sitting in a dump just means it's food for rodents. Make it beneficial for start-ups and individuals to process this rather than tech costly. Hell, there are people with pickup trucks that would be glad to take this stuff home and compost it themselves but they need a centralized place to pick it up. They might even go into business creating compost. The barriers to entry with a methane recovery system are huge and leave only massive corporations able to accommodate, and of course only then if they see a long-term profitable future in doing so.

        However, for the end effect that California says it seeks, the answer to it like most everything in a market economy is not the threat of the stick, as anyone who wants to evade the law or finds it to be financially costly will find other ways around it and the state would spend a fortune trying to track something that can't be tracked.

        Conversely, if they let businesses take a small tax credit for that which they donated and was approved by the food bank, there would be no issue in how to get the food to the food bank and grocers would be fighting each other off to donate their leftovers.

        1. Agreed.

        2. Can the rodents be farmed?

          1. We'll domesticate them to pull little rickshaws for mtruman.

        3. And where do you propose this central repository to be? NIMBY.

          1. He didn't. He didn't even propose they actually built one. He made a technical comment about the engineering aspects of the problem.

            Saying "If you want to accomplish this, you need to do that" is not the same as saying "You should do that".

        4. Knew a couple grocery stores that would keep boxes of trimmings for hogs and chickens if you asked. Out in the backs of trucks.

      4. We would benefit far more by composting democrats.

      5. Yeah. "I bet California lawmakers meant well in passing the measure to combat food waste and hunger, "

        I'll take that bet, Linnekin.

        They want to APPEAR to be combatting those problems, and the primary goal was for that APPEARANCE to be noted, for their virtuous INTENT to be clear to all.

        Now, IS there massive amounts of starvation going on in San DIego, Costa Mesa, LA? Maybe we need to ensure the dietary needs, and even (hell, why not?) the dietary desires, of our "temporarily-unhoused" fellow citizens. And what could top off a long day of doping, robbing, whoring and doping better than a good, free, assured meal? Make California more attractive to the "unhoused" and show the superior moral quality of the progs.

        That seems like the most obvious result of such legislation besides the usual A) higher costs for working Californians and B) damaging small businesses.

    2. In a landfill, organic waste is broken down in an anaerobic environment, and the methane is produced by microbes that can't tolerate oxygen. Composting is an aerobic process, and involves other microbes that don't make methane.

      1. This is completely false. Composting is not automatically an aerobic process, and it does indeed produce methane regardless of being aerobic or anaerobic.

        1. Shrike didn't finish high school apparently.

          1. "Composting offers an environmentally superior alternative to using organic material for landfill because composting reduces methane production (a major source of greenhouse gas), and provides a series of economic and environmental co-benefits.Oct 15, 2021"


            Facts are TOTALLY optional for tribalistic, hyper-partisan hacks! (Especially for the ones who can't or won't perform a simple Google search).

            1. Google is truth.


              Facts are TOTALLY optional for tribalistic, hyper-partisan hacks! (Especially for the ones who didn't finish high school).

              1. Literally the process used to harvest methane.

                1. Jesus H. Christ You are a stupid and careless liar!!! Here, you mention an article which makes ZERO mention of methane!!! They are harvesting the heat of aerobic decomposition directly!!! They are NOT generating methane to burn to create heat! And even if they did that (with 100% burning of the methane generated), there would be zero methane emissions anyway!

                  But that's too complicated for moronic liars and party hacks like you... The simple fact is that you carelessly LIED about methane in this case, when methane is NOT involved!!! Stupid cunt!

                  Got any MORE transparent lies for us, liar?

                    1. "Make a Biogas Generator to Produce Your Own Natural Gas".... Using ANAEROBIC composting, to catch and burn the gas that is generated!!!

                      "Composting is not automatically an aerobic process, and it does indeed produce methane regardless of being aerobic or anaerobic." Hank, who also called Chinny Chin Chin a total liar.

                      This is a 95% lie, in that aerobic composting emits a BUTTLOAD of a LOT less methane than the anaerobic version!!! But YOU, hyper-partisan liar, just HAD to jump in, in a tribalistic manner, and side with Hank (95% wrong), and shit on Chinny Chin Chin (whose take is far more accurate).

                      QED, hyper-partisan tribalist!

                    2. What would the Mother Earth News know about composting, ML? Sheesh!

                    3. How many times do you aerate your compost to keep it from going anaerobic, Sqrlsy?
                      If you're like everyone else I'm guessing zero.

                    4. says...

                      "Just remember that every part of
                      the compost should be within 12” of ambient air. This is the distance that oxygen can penetrate into the
                      compost, keeping the pile aerobic and preventing it from smelling and attracting flies."

                      No stirring needed, so long as nothing is further than 12 inches from nearby air. THE GOOGLE KNOWS ALL!!! (And will reveal all, for those who have the humility to admit that they do NOT know it all ALREADY!!!)

                    5. The conditions for generating biogas are substantially different from those for regular composting. Regular composting is done under aerobic conditions and mostly generates CO2.

              2. Your citation is discussing ANAEROBIC digestion, moron! Look at the top-most tank at the top of your article! Also look at the bottom of it, where it says this:

                "That being said, it is important to note that the organic matter content of the food waste input is reduced by half during anaerobic digestion before leaving the system as digestate," she adds.

                AEROBIC MULCH GENERATION DOESN'T DO THIS (make methane) NEARLY AS MUCH, moron!!!!

                1. How many people and companies regularly aerate their compost to prevent it from going anaerobic, Sqrlsy? Particularly when the results are the same in the end.
                  Who do you think that you're tricking?

                  1. They are only partly the same. The time to produce anaerobic compost is significantly longer than the aerobic process, so if time and the space to store it are not a problem, then you are correct. However, if you are trying to process it into a marketable product and don't have unlimited space to keep it, then turning it is what you do, and it's not that hard. I know several farmers and compost producers in the area and they all use a frontend loader to move the piles as needed. I've seen one other one that used a more mechanized process that transferred it from one bin to another.

                  2. "Particularly when the results are the same in the end."

                    They are NOT the same in the end!

                    A) Deliberately generate methane, catch it and burn it, in a special composter. NO methane leaks; no pearl-clutching eco-freaks freaking out!

                    B) Use aerobic composting and generate VERY LITTLE methane! Al Gore can fuck off!

                    C) Dump it in the landfill, and the methane (from ANAEROBIC "composting" will slowing leak out (if the landfill isn't super-high-tech-equipped to capture all of the methane). Now Al Gore can have a shit-fit!

                    Is this WAAAAY to complex and multi-faceted for you?

                  3. Spastic asshole is only tricking itself.

                    1. Brainless tribalistic MORON takes the WRONG side whenever the factually WRONG side favors a fellow tribe-slime!!!

              3. It would depend on when they went to High School. These days they are teaching that composting does NOT produce Methane.

                1. Aerobic composting does NOT emit NEARLY as much methane and anaerobic "composting" (as in landfills) is the plain and simple fact! Even many-many species of microbes are smart enough to "burn" their methane with oxygen, to get more energy, if oxygen is easily available! That makes these species of microbes FAR smarter than half of the smug-ass self-righteous know-it-alls who post here!

                2. Those who can't do, teach. The level of horseshit that I learned in HS science had nothing on what my kids were taught. Most would have been closer if they just stuck to teaching the texts but particularly the young ones also decided that this was their opportunity to pass on the wisdom they picked up on in memes and FB chatrooms.

          2. The narrative and in-group biases are more important than any pesky facts. Witness the 'brave' people wearing masks in defiance of the mask mandate being repealed. This literally being the point, individual choice, escapes them. Ignorance in the name of activism and virtue signaling is a hell of a drug.

            1. "Witness the 'brave' people wearing masks in defiance of the mask mandate being repealed."

              Masks no longer mandated, so only ?? cowards wear them? Is that your snark here? My wife recently had a bone marrow transplant, and she will be immune-compromised for many months to come. Homebound except for medical checkups. So I wear a mask in public. To try and help prevent me from bring home any "cooties" of any kind. What is that to YOU?

              "Not required, therefor prohibited to those who long to be in Good Standing with My Sacred Tribe" sounds like knee-jerk tribalistic bullshit to me, frankly!

              1. He didn't say that it was exclusively tribal flag-wavers. That's your presumption of what he said. Your situation makes you the very small minority among those who still wear their masks, and the ones who need them for medical reasons are wearing the N95 masks because those are the only ones that truly work.

                The vast majority of reasons why people still wear their masks have nothing to do with medical advisability. Most are tribal flag-waving to the public at large and also within their immediate networks and larger circles, fearful of being the only one to defy their group or as a part of the tribal signature. Wearing gang colors is a sign of fealty and it can be just as offensive for one of the gang to not wear them.

                Of course, there are other reasons including having become emotionally attached and insecure without it. These are the same people who panic when they realize their phone is still at home on the counter or who are emotionally strangled and personally offended every time they see a post they disagree with.

                1. I live in a university town. The majority of those wearing masks where I live is college undergrad students: White, well dressed, iPhone in hand, zero interpersonal skills with masks adding an extra barrier to hide behind when someone gets near them. I saw some today while shopping at Costco. Old farts have chucked their masks, but not the kids.

                  Years ago I noticed at the university library that these kids hid behind dry eraser boards on wheels, intended for students to use at their tables to draw equations, charts, graphs, etc. Instead they used them as moveable walls so that they could hide, while sneaking a peek to see who was looking at them. I wish I were kidding but I am not.

                  Now they have masks. Our future leaders.

                2. Agreed!

                  Live and let live kinds of folks will let you wear a mask (or not) and NOT judge your tribal affiliations accordingly!

                  I am an absent-minded person and a grumpy person as well, at times. I find that the mask allows me to smirk or sneer (or even stick my tongue out if I feel like it) at a speaker, and they will never know! Or... I can live in my own little world, even when some windbag is going on and on at me, and I can sneer AT MY OWN DISTRACTED INTERNAL THOUGHTS, and they will never know, either!

                  So it is kinda liberating... now maybe I should start wearing sunglasses most of the time as well, to hide my eye-rolling ways!

    3. Composting is aerobic, landfilling is anaerobic.

    4. "It tasks cities and counties with formulating local plans, with a statewide goal of recovering 20% of edible food by 2025,"

      See the fracas below.

      "In the year 2025,
      If Democraps are still alive,
      If Repukes can survive,
      They may fiiiind..." 🙂

      To the tune of Zager and Evans "In the Year 2525"

      1. Oops, I mean the fracas above. Sheesh! It's got me so I don't know up from down. 🙂

  2. Good and hard.

  3. By the way, remember those illegal secret flights being conducted by the Department of Homeland Security using shady contractor cutouts, where they smuggle planeloads and busloads of illegals from border areas like El Paso into places in the interior like White Plains, New York at 3 in the morning in a failed attempt to try to keep what they're doing secret? Well, for those of you though that this was only going on for a short period of time last year, you should know that this is actually STILL going on right to this very day:

    This is an absolute clear cut, slam dunk case of the administration violating federal law and the Constitution. These activities and the money being spent on them were never authorized by congress in any way, shape, or form. And it's going to be the #1 thing that gets Joe Biden impeached next year. There will be hard video evidence and numerous people willing to come testify under oath about what's going on. and the administration will have absolutely no legal rebuttal to fall back on whatsoever.

    1. So? Nothing will happen

      1. Agreed. Republicans have no balls.

    2. You need to loosen that "cock ring" and let some blood flow into that appendage you call a brain.
      Why do so many Reason commenters have trouble staying on topic?
      As for impeaching Biden; what a waste of time. The result would be having to suffer through blowhards from both parties aping for the cameras with no chance of getting 66 votes in the Senate to remove him.

      1. Turnabout is fair play?

      2. The weekend comment section tends to be a free for all in terms of topics, mostly due to the limited number of articles posted. And the typical article the commenter choose for said free for all is typically baylens food article. It's a system that emerged over the last few yeas in a bottom up approach, something all libritarian can appreciate

      3. So, exactly like two Trump impeachments?

        1. Yes. And they were not good and a net negative for our country.

          1. This one would be based off of actual illegal activity

            1. ...but the results would be the same; no conviction. Even the Senate is not so dumb as to usher in a President Harris.

              1. Citation needed.

          2. Yes. And they were not good and a net negative for our country.

            I disagree: those two impeachments revealed a lot about a whole bunch of politicians that we didn't know before. That's been quite useful.

        2. There hasn't been an impeachment yet that is for reasons the Constitution calls for. Can't say it won't happen, but so far it's all been for political posturing and I expect more of them in the relatively near future. The net effect is public desensitization to the potentiality for it being necessary for high crimes. In other words, even if one should become necessary, will the partisans take it seriously? Probably not. The presumption by party loyalists will be that it's just one of many other political attacks.

          Personally, I'd love there to be a downside to anyone pursuing it in such a manner. Like if you pay someone to come up with bullshit in order to unseat a president, you get charged with treason and attempting a coup.

          1. Attempting to overthrow the Republic by subverting its institutions does seem remarkably like treason.

            Don't they execute people for that?

            My god, we could probably solve the national debt by putting Hillary's execution by firing squad on PPV.

            1. Thank you. This administration is not merely breaking the law, they are directly subverting both the spirit and letter of our duly passed immigration laws.

              I honestly thought that the Clinton impeachment was mostly bullshit, but Biden/Obama and their people are straight up criminals.

              1. "I honestly thought that the Clinton impeachment was mostly bullshit, but Biden/Obama and their people are straight up criminals."

                They are but Obama is no longer President and even if Biden were to be impeached there is no way the Senate could get 66 votes to convict (Romney, Collins and Murkowski along with every Democrat not vote for a conviction).

                Worse yet a conviction would result in a President Harris.

            2. Auction off the shooter positions to the highest bidders. That would raise some capital.

  4. Food waste is sorted at the Puente Hills Material Recovery Facility

    Right. That guy is easily and cleanly diverting "a quarter of edible food now destined for dumps to food banks to feed the needy".

    "Pureed watermelon rinds for your fruit portion today again, folks. Enjoy!"

    1. You will eat it - and be happy.

    2. The needy can dine on steaks and Cocola thanks to SNAP. Who are these needy that are going to eat recycled slop? In California no less.

      1. This is sort of only technically true, insofar as yes, it is not forbidden to purchase those things with SNAP benefits. And I realize that SNAP is administered on a state basis and CA probably has different settings. But I've been on SNAP, and in NM, that gets a single adult about $230 a month, max. So if you have to eat for the whole month on that, you're probably not eating much steak.

  5. Obviously we need a Manhattan Project effort to develop flux capacitors so that this food waste can be used to power vehicles.

    1. Wasn't flux capacitors. The flux capacitor stored the energy needed for the time transition. You need 1.21 gigawatts of power and be traveling at 88 miles per hour (142 km/h) to initiate time travel. That's why he had the plutonium and needed the lightning.

      In the future, the Delorean was retrofitted with a Mr. Fusion, which could convert garbage to energy sufficient to power the time circuits. But they never hooked up Mr Fusion to the engine...which was the premise for running out of gas in the 3rd movie. They had to the power for the time circuits, but no way to get up to 88 MPH. Thus the whole train deal.

      1. This comment made this whole segment worth trudging through

        1. Yes!
          Also, the gunk under the average toenail has far more energy than 1.21 GW. We just can't currently get at it. LOL!

      2. Let's face it, the whole premise was absurd. The very idea of getting a Delorean to go 88 miles an hour. Plus the time travel bit.

    2. Yes, but in the pqst, the food won't be there to compost and in the future, it'll all be already composted. And where we're going, will we even need food? Ah! The paradoxes of time travel.

      1. Correction: past, though in the future, it may be spelled in some weird Elon Musk way. 🙂

        1. Well based on sci-fi movies (Soylent Green, Blade Runner, Terminator et al) better to go to the past and stay there.

    1. California leads again !

      I never realized that CA views its stupidity in such competitive terms.

      1. No. In any stupid contest, you are very near the top.


    Today, Joe Biden shook hands with Gaige Grosskreutz, the felon who nearly murdered Kyle Rittenhouse and lied to the police about carrying an illegal firearm:


    1. The left is pushing for CW2. The lines are being drawn, and people are ignoring the signs.

      1. It won’t be a civil war. It will be a revolution. The left are homogeneously a bunch of worthless pussies, as Rittenhouse proved, and even if The whole of LE and the military are with the democrats, it won’t be nearly enough to stop the good guys. And most of them will not be with the democrats.

    2. Jesusfuckingchrist

    3. Shook *hand*. Snicker.

      1. Grosskreutz was effectively disarmed. It's a mistake he'll have to shoulder for life.

  7. Left-leaning/progressive activists/politicians failed to consider second and third order consequences for their feel-good virtue signaling idea? Say it isn't so.


    1/2 MAYA ANGELOU -- Sexualized Math worksheet & Trauma Informed book "Why the Caged Bird Sings"


    1. But chemjeff swore it was just a couple of biographies on black mathematicians.

    2. Wow. That's even worse than I expected. At least a problem figuring out some of the stats of Mommy's OnlyFans followers or trying to divide by the number of Johnny's two Daddies' female sexual partners would still be math. That's straight up "Learn Maya Angelou so you don't have to learn HS math."

  9. This is California. Officials will see the error of the law and modify it or repeal it. Surely.

  10. What happens when police stop prosecuting theft:

    1. *BOOOOOOOST!*

  11. I drove by my local homeless camp a couple of hundred yards from my house and spotted a 300lb dude crawling out of his tent. I don't think starvation is a problem for the "needy". I think it's something else.

  12. I'm pretty sure Pfizer could develop a hunger vaccine that could be mandated. What we need now is more testing.

    1. Maybe use this food waste as a start for Soylent Green. I'm sure Pfizer would jump right in and then add people who died from their "vaccines".

  13. No food service wants to waste food... it's money down the drain. Most food service businesses I have worked at would happily donate their extra food. BUT... transients line up and harass staff if they try it at their back door, they are open to lawsuits if someone claims the food went bad, food pantries haven't wanted it because it comes in irregularly so a lot goes into their garbage. There's also a lot of health code penalties that encourage stores to dump stuff rather than take a chance of a fine or suit. Fix that and you won't need a new law to cut down on food waste.

    1. I don't know why they thought it would be any different.

      Food is wasted because it is no longer fit to serve to people. If it was still perfectly good, then it would be served or sold, not thrown away.

      Additionally, this food is often already cooked or at least out of packaging, so shipping is extremely difficult on a per-pound basis and shelf life is extremely low.

      A preschooler could think of the potential problems with this idea. I don't understand how you can have this many educated people come up with an idea this stupid.

  14. What hunger? All my life people have been trying to gin up concern for hunger in America, which doesn't exist. Those who go hungry either are children whose parents have severe behavioral problems, or people with severe behavioral problems themselves that make them forget to eat. Either way, hunger is the least of their problems.

    1. I saw 2 commercials back to back where one said 1 in 4 kids are at risk for hunger and 4 out of 5 kids are at risk for type 2 diabetes. I would like to see the 5% that are starving and overfed

      1. Well, they're "starving" while being overfed in the sense of nutrient deficiency because all they eat is raw sugar. Which accounts for the diabetes aspect.

        I realize that's not what they mean when they talk about "hunger" in children, though it's probably a larger actual concern than the other thing.

        1. As if anyone is starving to death in the US. Although the Biden administration is hard at work bringing starvation back to America. Seriously, things might get bad before the end of the year. If they actually make that happen then I do hope that they get overthrown.

      2. Of that I am not surprised. What I see around my town are a number, far too many ion fact of obese kids, most of them in their teens, Some of adults here are no better. never witnessed so much obesity.
        I blame it on too much soda pop, McDonalds and other crap.

      3. Not to advocate semantics one way or the other, maybe to highlight the absurd semantic shift that's going unnoticed, but 'hunger' =/= 'starving'. The person who eats 2,000kCal/day doesn't starve or go hungry. The person who eats 14,000 kCal/day once a week won't starve but will go hungry despite averaging the same daily caloric intake. That's what's really being said here.

        These people are getting (more than) enough food, they just aren't getting it crammed in their pie holes on a regular schedule by someone more generally aware and responsible than them like some sort of dementia-addled nonagenarian who can't remember to take their pills.

  15. Also, we'd be better off putting methane to good use than trying to prevent its production.

    1. Roberta,
      That is not so easy, but it could be worth doing at least on an experimental scale. Credible proposals of that sort certainly exist.

  16. "I bet California lawmakers meant well . . . "

    You lose that bet.

    1. Yes. We really need to stop betting or assuming that any D/progressive "means well." At this point, if you still espouse progressive policies, you are wrong/bad/evil/etc.

  17. That's because grocers, restaurants, food banks, local governments, and others haven't "figure[d] out who is responsible for reclaiming [food] leftovers [under the law], and how to pay the costs of doing so."

    So all the stores just whistle up an Uber to take the waste to the "make it not waste" place, and bill the legislature.

  18. It's not backfiring, it's working exactly as intended.

    *Urban core* businesses will get clarification and exceptions made for them, rural areas will have to operate with one eye out for random enforcement - which will become targeted enforcement if they piss off someone with connections.

    It's all designed to force people into the urban cores where they can more easily be controlled. Pods, bugs, own nothing - you know the drill by now.

  19. CA-Nazi's flexing their muscles at those peon slaves and pulling out the Gov-Guns. It's all about massaging their Power-Mad ego's. It's not as if CA Politicians need to take any time do any charity; they'll just point those Gov-Guns at the peon slave's and force them to do it. They are the Nazi's after all.

    As Hank Ferrous mentions above; It's all about Power-Mad Virtue-Signalling. Whereas sensible people identify charity as a voluntary act; the Nazi's think armed robbery/enslavement is charity.

    1. Consider, for a moment, just which party is in control in Sacramento.

  20. Here in Indianapolis, things are far from perfect, but far, far better than on the left coast. Here we have organizations like Second Helpings that takes food donations from restaurants and grocery stores and makes good, hot lunches for people in need. In the process, they also train people to be gourmet cooks so they can land a good-paying job. Likewise, Gleaners also takes donations from grocery stores and distributes them to various places, including food pantries. These are private organizations which do accept government funding (so, kind of hybrid) and they're completely legal here.
    Both of these organizations have part of their reason for being to cut down on food waste.

    1. In the process, they also train people to be gourmet cooks so they can land a good-paying job.

      That's pretty awesome, I have to admit.

    2. "...These are private organizations which do accept government funding (so, kind of hybrid) and they're completely legal here..."

      In SF, there are a couple of similar organizations, organized as charities, so they can avoid the M/W laws.
      Jobs I worked growing up, and jobs we provided to kids when we started our company are illegal now. The kids no longer take after-school jobs with local businesses; they now see their welfare provided by the state through those charities.

  21. "In addition to fighting hunger, the law was also intended to combat food waste—which has an outsized contribution to greenhouse gas emissions, as food sent to landfills belches methane, a far more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. The massive scale of food waste is an enormous problem."

    Climate alarmism continues to be ridiculous and idiotic and thus spawns ridiculous and idiotic policies.

  22. "California's New Food Waste Law Is Backfiring"

    Nah. It's doing exactly what it's supposed to do. Creating more bureaucracy, and pushing the costs off onto businesses.

    1. Subsidizing the worst of attitudes and self-entitlement by punishing the human resource providers...

      What a winning narrative the left has... They should just label all their bills the Self-Destruction Act of xxxx.

  23. "Compliance is proving to be expensive and confusing. "
    Typical of the new laws in this one-party state.

  24. CO2 causing warming is, of course, bullshit. Why does anyone believe otherwise? Oh I know...consensus.

    1. The [WE] mob power to create delusional science.

  25. I bet California lawmakers meant well in passing the measure to combat food waste and hunger...
    I bet California lawmakers meant to gain even move control over citizens and business passing the measure. It they want to make sure the hungry eat and there is less waste, lower taxes, lower energy prices, deregulate and then just get out of the way. Low prices and charity seems a better way to help the poor than the government.

  26. California just can't help shooting itself in the foot. The state legislature is addicted to it. They can't help themselves. Somehow it must have been inbred into them or's the water.
    No other state government has caused so much confusion, harm and created just the opposite effect of what they wanted than the government in Sacramento.
    Yet the people of that state continue to re-elect the same idiots time and again expecting different results.
    Is it any wonder why so many people have moved out of that state.

    1. At least they're not racist, religious bigot clingers, and that's all that matters.

  27. "California leads again!"

    Being the first lemming isn't something to brag about.

  28. The answer is simple for restaurants: Everyone knows that portions are too large, so the solution is smaller plates and servings. And waiters serve a purpose similar as at bars, of limiting how much a person can order until they have eaten what they have already ordered.
    "All you can eat" is a swear-phrase to me.
    The answer is similarly simple for grocers. Reduce the amount on sale, particularly produce, so that less has to be thrown out. Sometimes empty shelves and displays is better than throwing things out.

    1. as far as groceries are concerned, "just in time" ordering removes any excuse for wasting much food at all. When you buy that head of lettuce, as it crosses the scanner the warehouse knows the store just sold one and so will add another to the order being picked just then.
      Some large grocery chains really bother me. I walk through their produce section, every display is chock full, all nicely choreographed to gove the ipression of limintless abundance. Workers are constantly replaceing the four peaches Sally just bought. It all mus tlook pristine and new. Ad SO MUCH goes to waste. My local place IS a fairly large chain, but they let things run low before they bring out the new cases. No one is concerned about half-empty bins. They know before the bin runs low enough to be a problem the produce guy has a new case in there. I see almost NO waste. they don't give to the food bank, because nothing is left over. It ALL sells. Nothing remains that even approaches the sell by date. They keep the margins paper thin precisely to avoid waste..and thereby incurring higher cost to their customers. And we all know it. Best, freshest, and cheapest produce and meats and other perishables in town. I can't afford to shop anywhere else, and NO ONE has better/fresher/cheaper produce.

  29. California is prolly the biggest law creator but hardly gets any right.

  30. Don't worry, with pending food shortages, there will be less to hand off. Are shelters allowed to throw out food they can't use - there's tons of it. Same old problem, food shortages are a problem of distribution, not production. Remember there are 47 different federal food programs which hand out food - can anyone say "redunduncy"?

  31. Your maths are way off. If as you state forty percent of produced food goes to waste, cosumers do NOT pay only ten percent of their money for waste. The margins remain the same, so Mr. Hungry Consumer most now pony up for all those punkins, skwarshis, ruddy beggars, an biskits.

    Futher, methane cannot be very harmful as there are many natural sources of methane that have been emitting uncontrolled for milennia, and the planet is still here. Let's have done with the "planet will vanish in three, two, one......" memes.
    But let's be realistic: in six months, right after the midterms, none of these numbers will matter in regards food production and distribution. They will, in revenge for the outcome of the election, make good on their apocalyptic threats of widespread famine and food non-existence.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.