[00:00:00.000] Hi, Gabrielle. Hi, David.

[00:00:01.160] How are you?

[00:00:01.690] I’m well. Good, good. It’s the end of the week. Excellent. I think we’re probably a couple of years into this podcast, and this is the first one we do together, which is surprising.

[00:00:12.820] I’ve done one with Charles. I’ve done it with Isaac, with Dan. Yeah, you’ve done a few.

[00:00:16.870] So there’s a first. I know. All right. All right. Today, we’re going to talk, well, specifically about something that revolves around food waste and food rescue. And we’ll start by saying that there’s this article that was Nicola found, it’s called by NPR. So state bans on Commercial Food Waste Have Been Largely Ineffective Study Finds. And basically in this article, so you asked to see the science behind it.

[00:00:46.360] Yeah. Nicola brought this article forward. And in it, it cites an article in a journal, in the Journal of Science, which is a very reputable journal. And the authors in this news article say they’re very confident. We can confidently say the laws didn’t work or the laws had no discernible effect on total landfill waste. And I have been talking about researching these food waste bans on food going into landfills for now a couple of years. So I was like, interesting that they don’t think it works. And so I asked Nicola to pull the article. So she got us the actual article from Science magazine. Thank you to whoever got it from the McGill University library system. And And that’s what we read. So that’s actually more the substance of what we read than the newspaper article, which was not very detailed.

[00:01:35.100] No, exactly. So as we looked at this science article, they come up with… So basically, there are five states that have imposed or set in place laws around food waste. And of those states, there’s California, there’s Massachusetts, and I’ll say- Vermont, Connecticut, and Rhode Island. There you go.

[00:01:58.470] And- That was New Jersey. New Jersey, New York. So there’s more. There’s nine states, but I think this study only covers five of them. Correct. Maybe by the time they wrote this, there were nine.

[00:02:09.880] And they’re saying that one came ahead of class compared to all others for a certain reason that we can, that we’ll bring up. But, well, let’s bring them up right now. Ultimately, the study is around how… Of the There are states that have imposed laws around food waste.

[00:02:32.930] Yeah, not going into landfills.

[00:02:35.370] Well, maybe you can talk about the law a little bit or the theme.

[00:02:39.520] Yeah, they’re all slightly different across the different states. But the general idea is that the government wants to keep organic material out of landfill, because when you put organic material in landfill, it decomposes, and that emits both carbon dioxide, CO₂, and methane, which are bad for the environment. And so the government says we would rather that people who generate waste, organic waste, so that could be like lawn, things from lawn care or plants or chiefly food, that should be composted, put to an anaerobic digester, reused in some form, but we don’t want it just decomposing in a landfill. So they’ve made these laws.

[00:03:22.920] Which is managed at state level.

[00:03:25.170] Yeah. Each state is able to control its own waste management. So they’re doing that. And And then the states have designed the rules differently. Yeah, correct.

[00:03:33.870] And that’s why it hasn’t necessarily had the same effect. Well, there’s the law themselves and how the states are organized around those laws. And ultimately, what is mentioned in there is that Massachusetts is ahead of the curve or that it’s the only state where they’ve seen improvements.

[00:03:54.790] Yeah. These authors, they did a lot of work to get a lot of data, which is very interesting and impressive because it’s very hard to get data on specifically exactly what’s going into landfill. So they gather all this data and then they judged across time. So they gathered for several years It’s 1996 to 2019. So the laws, though, didn’t come into effect until starting in 2014. So they have a long lead up of how much waste is going to landfills, and then the laws come into effect, and then they have only a few years afterwards to the effect. And their calculations are that Massachusetts is the only state to show an actual reduction in organic material in landfills. And that the other states are basically, they don’t see any change, maybe slightly different, but not really significant.

[00:04:47.160] So the three elements on which they judge the efficiency of those laws are the affordability- Well, this is what Massachusetts sell that, but not necessarily their judgment. Fair enough. Okay, good point. That’s how they stand out is around the affordability of compliance, namely the distance between those who generate that waste and ultimately the areas where it can be composted. So the density of facilities within the state makes it that if you are actually close as a generator close to where you can manage your waste in a way that is not a landfill, obviously that’s going to help if that distance is short.

[00:05:34.750] Yes. And they’ve pointed out that Massachusetts has built an extensive network. Massachusetts is also a relatively small state geographically, so that makes it easier for them to have a facility nearby, everybody.

[00:05:46.710] The second point was around the regulatory simplicity, meaning that where in Massachusetts, there’s no exception, either by county or by type of generator. It’s like, here’s the law, it It’s simple. It’s the same for everybody. So that is also a reason why they stand out. And the third element was the ban enforcement, so inspection. The state was actually monitoring and issuing fines of those that were not complying. Yes.

[00:06:18.980] So that all makes sense.

[00:06:19.980] It makes sense. But then, as you were reviewing this, if you come back to what the author states very strongly.

[00:06:28.360] Yes. So the state that I know the most about, and I am by no means an expert, but I know a little bit enough to have an interpretation of this, is the state of California, which passed multiple laws banning organic material landfill, one in 2016, which is what this study covers. And then there’s another quite well-known law called SB 1383 that went into effect in 2022, though it was passed prior to And knowing what I know about California, I thought these authors overstated their case. So one thing to note here is that their data only goes to 2019. The law went into effect in 2016. This gives a very short amount of time in the grand scheme of things to actually judge how effective it is, because what it’s asking is for companies, and to some extent individuals, but here we’ll focus on companies, to change their waste management practices and to really come up with all the new ways and more enhanced ways of dealing with the waste. And that doesn’t happen overnight, even in a year, that’s not going to happen. Likewise, the enforcement mechanisms or building out the composting facilities, those are also not going to happen in one year.

[00:07:46.040] Building composting facilities in a state as big as California is going to take a long time, much more than Massachusetts. And the enforcement in California, the state left the enforcement up to each county. Each county has to spin up the rules and the people and the processes to go out and inspect and find people. And that, again, takes time to develop. So I thought they were just very quick to judge, and not enough time has passed to really assess the effectiveness of this law in California.

[00:08:15.670] Very little overlap between the data they captured post-laws versus what you’re saying actually should be looked at in terms of period to see those changes.

[00:08:28.320] I think it would take several years to I don’t really see the effect of it.

[00:08:32.310] Do you want to elaborate on this? Because we say, well, it makes sense to say, well, it takes time, but why does it take time?

[00:08:42.650] Well, you have the There’s many parties. You’ve got your companies, what they call generator. So it’s like in our world, let’s say, to narrow it down, we’re talking about grocery stores, distribution centers, some large food service operators, at a stadium, let’s say, or a big hospital cafeteria, university cafeteria. There’s multiple levels of generators. They each have to figure out their own operations. You’ve got the county level enforcement, and then you’ve got food rescue groups that they have to… These generators have to find people who are able… When they have edible food, particularly, not just organic material that is like non-edible waste, but edible food, they have to make arrangements to try to save that edible food. Then you have food rescue groups, and there’s a lot of them, and they’re very active. But this is now mandating a much larger volume of food that has to be dealt with. So then those groups have to expand, develop more infrastructure alongside the generators, who also have to come up with more ways of dealing with this. So everyone has to develop their processes and their infrastructure, and that takes the Yes.

[00:10:00.220] So basically, you have the generators who generate that waste, where they are used to work a certain way. Now, they have to change some of the ways they’re working. And then the organizations or entities that can contribute to helping dealing with that waste, as you say, food rescue, for instance, are organizations that traditionally have been more on the charitable side rather than I don’t want this to sound negative, but- You’re more on a smaller scale.

[00:10:35.410] Yeah.

[00:10:36.290] The operation is not something that has evolved through time in a very rigorous way or as a business would do, a for-profit business would do. But therefore, they have also to, let’s say, develop their service or their ability to deal with potentially much large measure amounts and also a timing that meets what the generators need in order for their operation to be able to function. Yes.

[00:11:09.590] Then I would say the third side would be the government or the sometimes nonprofits that the government employs to monitor and enforce this and figure out who’s eligible, who’s covered by the law, and who needs to comply. So you’ve got the government, the generators, and the food rescue groups, and all three of them need to develop. They need time to develop their processes and infrastructure. So I don’t think two years or three years would be enough to make a really huge difference.

[00:11:40.910] So your leaning is not a strong word, not the I don’t know if that’s enough of a strong word, but you’re of the opposite opinion that actually we need these laws. We need the government to put in place something to start- I want to believe that they’re effective.

[00:11:55.050] I guess I just think these researchers are premature declaring that they don’t work. Yeah. So they need to give it more time.

[00:12:05.010] Exactly. Time will tell.

[00:12:06.660] Time will tell. Or study it in a slightly different way that might uncover some of the effects in a shorter term. But this methodology, I just don’t think they waited long enough. Yeah. But I mean, it’s good to try to understand, because actually what these authors say at the end is, well, let’s not waste our resources on laws that don’t really work. If this doesn’t have an effect, then don’t spend our time on it, which is fair, but I just don’t think they’re totally convinced us.

[00:12:33.600] Yeah. Well, all right. Anything else you want to add about this?

[00:12:38.900] I think these laws are coming. Despite this article that’s a little bit negative about them, California is usually And some of these other states, but particularly California, is often on the leading edge of regulatory laws in the United States. And what California does first, then a lot of other states will follow. So give this a couple more years. If it is effective, if they can show that it reduces organic material infills, then it’s going to be coming across the United States and beyond. And then there are many, many, many more food generators and food rescue groups that will have to comply and deal with these kinds of law.

[00:13:16.610] Well, California is already putting in effect a law that supersedes what was- That’s more the…

[00:13:26.210] Yes. So the one that the… Sorry to interrupt. The authors, because their data only goes to 2019. They didn’t capture a law that went into effect in 2022, I believe, that is even stronger in California, and that even further mandates, further restrictions, further requirements about what can be put in the landfill and how edible food has to be recaptured. So that’s not even in the time frame of this study. And I think that’s a law that’s one of the more advanced ones in the United States and is being watched for by everybody else to see the effect and could become. Exactly. And then that says that as a food generator, like a grocery store or food service outlet, you must find a way to get your edible food to people who need to eat it.

[00:14:15.010] You cannot waste it. Before getting rid of it.

[00:14:17.760] Yeah. Yeah. That you actually have that obligation. Yeah.

[00:14:20.990] Well, good. And not that we’re going to get into this right now, but that you kill a two birds with one stone where you have this issue of the environmental effect of wasting or not dealing with waste properly. And there’s also a demand for food that is quite important. So I don’t want to say to start because obviously that’s been an issue that exists since the beginning of time. But that definitely that there’s more and more efforts put around it in order to combine it.

[00:15:02.760] Yeah, and I think Lid’s work in this area is very often at the intersection of those two issues, food waste and food insecurity. And the crux question in the middle is, how do you build the infrastructure that allows you to connect those two things. In the for-profit food distribution network, we expect that people need buildings and trucks and equipment and all these things in order to move food around. In the nonprofit sector, in this emergency food system, we also need infrastructure. You can have food that’s edible in one place and people who need it in another, and that takes infrastructure to get it to them and get it to them in a form that is transportable and acceptable at a household level and safe. And so that infrastructure, that’s what Lids work in this area is all about.

[00:15:50.600] Yeah, because the question also of who pays for it, right?

[00:15:54.740] Yeah. Who’s going to pay for that infrastructure in the middle of those two? You have a problem and a solution, or two problems and two solutions, and how do you get them together? But who’s going to pay to make them match?

[00:16:06.640] Pays with the benefits that you’ll get from resolving or improving on that large issue. Yes. All right. Well, thank you very much, Gabrielle, for sharing on this. Thank you, David. It’s my pleasure. It’s been a pleasure. Excellent. All right. Bye. Ciao.