It’s been a brutal summer: Rising temperatures are fueling climate fears, and concerns about food insecurity remain urgent. Nearly 1.7 million people are food insecure in Pennsylvania, and 2024 saw the state’s highest SNAP enrollment ever. At the intersection of these crises is the daunting challenge of food waste: In the U.S., up to 40% of the food we produce is wasted, with huge climate impacts, while one in 10 people go hungry. Can we change this?

Interest in tackling food waste through policy action is growing at both the state and federal levels. In December, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), and U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) released a “Draft National Strategy to Reduce Food Loss and Waste and Recycle Organics.”

These organisations are right – it is time to develop a national strategy to reduce food waste. But to develop an effective strategy, we need to rethink not only our entire system for handling surplus food, but also the charitable food system itself. Your report fails to do this.

To have the greatest impact on climate and food security, regulators must draw on the expertise of food rescue organizations.

The draft national strategy includes a plan to “facilitate and promote food donations to improve access to healthy and affordable food.” Increasing food donations from consumer-facing businesses such as grocery stores and restaurants (which generate 18 million tons of waste each year) is not possible without an understanding of the challenges of recovering retail surplus and the limitations of the prevailing, decades-old system of retail food donations.

This historic model relies on regular pickups using refrigerated trucks, which then often return the donations to food banks where they are sorted, inventoried, stored and redistributed through a network of food banks and emergency relief organizations. This model is designed to fight hunger and is an important part of hunger relief, but it is not designed to fight food waste.

Retail surpluses are created in a vast and widely distributed network that includes over 180,000 supermarkets, shopping malls, health food stores and grocery stores, not to mention cafes, bakeries, restaurants and establishments such as schools that serve food. The surpluses generated in this sector are also a moving target, often occurring in unpredictable types and quantities. And they are time-sensitive, as they largely consist of ripe produce and other fresh foods that are nearing the end of their shelf life and need to be consumed or preserved promptly. These items are precisely the type of nutrient-dense foods that are desperately needed by, and often unavailable to, food-insecure people, but they cannot be easily metabolised by the traditional emergency food supply system.

However, these perishable foods are the primary product of food recovery organizations (FROs), which focus on eliminating waste as much as possible at both the donor and distribution levels. Across the country, FROs have found a broader and more diverse range of distribution partners for surplus food beyond traditional food assistance networks. They have developed innovative distribution mechanisms and systems, working with organizations such as public housing agencies, WIC offices, veterans programs, and other partners that can receive and distribute rescued food seven days a week in locations that food-insecure people already live near and frequent.

By capturing a larger and more diverse share of retail surplus food and getting more of it to dinner tables before it spoils, this approach not only reduces food waste but also increases food security in underserved communities. Research shows that target populations in areas served by a strong food rescue organization already have improved access to nutritious food.

In fact, Pittsburgh has become a key testing ground for such outcomes. For example, a 2018 GIS study and subsequent 2021 follow-up study in the region’s areas served by 412 Food Rescue found dramatic increases in food access for people in multiple categories, including people living in transit deserts, food deserts, and low-income areas. Strategies honed here are then shared across the organization’s partner network, which serves 37 North American counties.

Given the proven impact of FROs, it is disheartening that the National Draft Strategy only mentions them once in the context of actual funding, with the proposed $15 million being shared with other stakeholders. This item is part of the total $26.5 million earmarked for food loss and waste prevention measures. At the same time, the document allocates over $700 million for recycling and anaerobic digestion-related initiatives, even though the EPA’s Food Waste Scale considers donations preferable to such downstream measures.

The Food Waste Scale ranks food donation and upcycling as the second most popular action, just after eliminating waste by producing, buying and serving only what is needed. The EPA states: “Food donation is one of the most preferred options because it ensures that food and the resources used to produce it are not wasted. When food is donated, it is used for its original purpose, which is to feed people.” Given the agency’s own priorities, it would be desirable to see more investment in donations in its draft national strategy, with a focus on the most impactful donation models.

FROs achieve this impact by testing new methods and technologies in the field, generating data, and achieving measurable reductions in waste and food insecurity. Those tasked with developing food waste policies should leverage the expertise of these organizations and invest in the solutions they have developed.