In 2022, when a California law went into effect requiring restaurants and other food producers to donate their surplus edible food rather than send it to landfills, no one knew what sort of impact the law would have.
As the first of ten such laws passed nationwide aimed at reducing methane gas from food rot, the California law, known as Senate Bill (SB) 1383, has implications for a growing number of food banks, which often serve as repositories for the donated food.
Three and a half years later, however, the impact of the California law still remains unclear, with food banks in the state about evenly split over whether the law has been beneficial or has added costs and inefficiencies.
In a recent survey of its members, the California Association of Food Banks found that 30% of food banks thought the benefits of the law outweighed its costs; 33% thought the costs and benefits were about equal, and 36% said the costs were more than the benefits or they didn’t know (see chart, top).
On the plus side, California food recovery programs since 2022 have diverted 420,000 tons of food from landfills, and served about 700 million meals to families in need, according to CalRecycle. That represents a fraction of the 2.5 billion meals worth of edible food that are landfilled each year.
Also on the plus side, nearly two-thirds of the 33 food banks that responded to the survey said that they are receiving more donations. At the same time, the food banks are also getting more spoiled or unwanted donations, even as they receive more nutritious items, such as meat, produce and dairy.
Whether a food bank reported a positive or negative experience with the new law depended largely on the amount of local resources they received to be able to meet its requirements. Only half of the food banks surveyed said they received funding to implement the law, primarily from a county or city waste management jurisdiction or directly from CalRecycle.
“Our most important findings are that SB 1383 can have really positive benefits for food banks, but it depends on how much support is provided to go along with that additional volume of food,” said May Lynn Tan, Director of Research and Strategic Initiatives at California Association of Food Banks. “The food banks that received funding and had more support from their jurisdictions, had much better outcomes, and food banks that did not have the funding to go along with the increase in donations are really struggling,” she added.
Los Angeles Regional Food Bank, the state’s largest, has benefitted from the law, said Elizabeth Cervantes, Senior Director of Agency Relations and Product Acquisitions. “It’s brought a lot of attention to food waste and how food can be rescued and put to good use for people experiencing nutrition insecurity,” she said, noting that one in four people are food insecure in the city.
Since 2022, food donations to the food bank have increased by roughly 20%, though the food bank also credits its work with retailers over the past decade. “We’re seeing a lot more donations in the produce and dairy category,” Cervantes said, adding that she thinks many of those donations previously were being discarded or composted.
The food bank has expanded the number of agencies it works with since the law took effect and has received grants to help them buy vans, cold storage, scales and hydraulic lifts. “We’re one of the very fortunate food banks,” Cervantes acknowledged.
In contrast, in rural Humboldt County, where 150,000 residents are spread across 4,000 square miles, Carly Robbins, Executive Director at Food for People Inc., said the law “added a big administrative burden.” The food bank’s capacity for picking up food is limited, she said, and it’s gotten minimal support from its local jurisdiction, which recently hired a consulting company from outside the county to administer the law.
“It’s a lot more reporting, data collection, and fielding phone calls from confused generators,” Robbins said, adding, “I love the thought behind SB 1383, but the unfunded mandate is hard because it is primarily falling on food banks and food recovery entities to do most of the administrative work.”
Food generators are required to sign contracts with food recovery organizations to prove that they’re donating their unsold, recoverable food. Reporting on the pounds of food recovered and redistributed, however, falls on the food recovery organizations, which are also responsible for handling all the logistical work.
Many food banks have had to respond by hiring additional staff members. Two-thirds of food banks surveyed hired one or more staff members to handle the increased workload, adding costs that range from about $24,000 to $288,000 annually. Los Angeles Regional Food Bank, for example, added two staff people to manage the extra work, but only one position was grant funded, Cervantes said.
Feeding America Riverside/San Bernadino similarly hired a full-time staff person dedicated to food recovery, CEO Carolyn Fajardo said. “For us, it seems worth it because it became very unmanageable for somebody to do it as part of the many programs they run.” Donations there have increased 15% to 20% year-over-year since 2022, Fajardo said.
Robbins of Food for People, however, couldn’t afford to hire new staff. “I’ve had to take people on my team who were focused on other things, and now a good portion of their time is reporting,” she said. For instance, the staff person who coordinates farm gleaning and food drive contracts now spends time creating contracts with food generators, as well as collating data and reporting it to the food bank’s jurisdiction.
“More of the food drive work has had to shift to our development team, so they have less time to focus on fundraising for our normal operations and we have not been able to coordinate as many farm gleaning/donation pick-ups,” Robbins said.
Most food banks surveyed also had to purchase equipment, including thermal blankets, cold storage, vehicles, or software for data collection, at costs ranging from $20,000 to $1.4 million.
Food quality is also a concern, with half of food banks reporting an uptick in inedible or spoiled food, which they must then dispose of themselves. “Sometimes the quality of food that they’re giving to us is essentially just food that should be trash,” Fajardo said. “Other times, we’re seeing a lot of partners [getting] higher quality food coming to their food organizations.” Staff turnover at some food generators also means the food bank must constantly invest in education, she said.
Rural food banks in particular noted difficulties in getting support from their local jurisdictions. Sara Griffen, Executive Director at Imperial Valley Food Bank, recommended exemptions for food banks collecting low volumes of food in sparsely populated areas.
“There’s not a cut and paste for every area of California,” said Griffen. “Things that work in urban areas do not work in our areas. When we have organic waste at the food bank, we take it to a goat farmer. Why are we making this harder?”
Looking forward, all food banks will need to find ways to sustain increased recovery operations, noted Tan of California Association of Food Banks. The group’s report advises food banks to identify ongoing, sufficient funding, while also recommending that policy makers, food generators and agencies relieve the administrative burden on food banks and collaborate on enforcement and food generator education. – Meg Wilcox
Meg Wilcox is an independent journalist who covers food and agricultural sustainability, environmental health and justice, and the business of sustainability. Her writing has appeared in the Boston Globe, Civil Eats, Eater, GreenBiz, Scientific American and other publications.
Like what you’re reading?
Support Food Bank News
