Food Loss and Waste: Building on Existing Federal Efforts Could Help to Achieve National Reduction Goal

The Natural Resources Defense Council reported that in the United States up to 40 percent of the food supply goes uneaten. FLW has significant economic, environmental, and social effects on various stakeholders, including businesses and consumers. In 2015, EPA and USDA announced a national goal to reduce FLW in the United States by half by 2030. In 2018, FDA joined EPA and USDA in these efforts.

GAO was asked to examine efforts by federal agencies to reduce FLW. This report (1) describes nonfederal stakeholder views on key challenges to reducing FLW in the United States, (2) describes actions EPA and USDA have taken to address key challenges to reducing FLW in the United States, and (3) examines federal planning efforts toward achieving the national FLW reduction goal. GAO reviewed federal reports on FLW; analyzed agency documents; interviewed officials from EPA, FDA, USDA, and states and representatives of nonfederal stakeholders, such as academic institutions, industry, international organizations, nonprofit organizations, and a tribal organization, based on their demonstrated expertise on FLW; and attended conferences on FLW.

GAO identified three key areas in which challenges exist to reducing food loss and waste (FLW) in the United States: (1) limited data and information about FLW; (2) a lack of awareness and education about FLW; and (3) limited infrastructure and capacity. For example, the causes of FLW vary across the stages of the food supply chain (see figure), but the share of total FLW due to each of these causes is currently unknown, according to a U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) report. GAO identified these challenges through interviews with selected stakeholders.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and USDA have taken initial actions to address key challenges to reducing FLW in the United States since announcing a national FLW reduction goal in 2015. These actions include conducting a study to identify gaps in information about farm-level FLW and building public awareness about ways to reduce FLW.

EPA, USDA, and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services' Food and Drug Administration (FDA) have taken some actions to plan and organize their efforts toward achieving the national FLW reduction goal. For example, EPA developed an internal plan that established action areas, goals, and activities for reducing FLW, and USDA designated an individual to guide USDA's FLW efforts. In October 2018, EPA, USDA, and FDA signed an interagency agreement committing them to developing a strategic plan to improve their collaboration and coordination in reducing FLW. In April 2019, the agencies announced an interagency strategic plan with prioritized action areas to reduce FLW, but this strategic plan does not address how it will incorporate key practices for interagency collaboration that GAO identified, including (1) agreeing on roles and responsibilities; (2) developing mechanisms to monitor, evaluate, and report on results; (3) clearly defining short- and long-term outcomes; (4) identifying how leadership commitment will be sustained; and (5) ensuring that the relevant stakeholders have been included in the collaborative effort. By incorporating such practices as they implement their interagency strategic plan, EPA, USDA, and FDA would have better assurance that they were effectively collaborating toward achieving the national FLW reduction goal.

GAO is making three recommendations in this report. GAO is recommending that EPA, FDA, and USDA incorporate leading collaboration practices as they implement their interagency strategic plan to reduce FLW.

In 2017, the Natural Resources Defense Council reported that, in the  United States, up to 40 percent of the food supply goes uneaten. In  addition, in 2016, Rethink Food Waste Through Economics and Data  (ReFED) reported that more than $218 billion—1.3 percent of the U.S.  gross domestic product—is spent each year on growing, processing,  transporting, and disposing of food that is not eaten. For the purposes of  this report, we refer to food loss and waste (FLW) as any food originally  meant for human consumption that leaves the human food supply chain,  even if it is directed to other uses, such as animal feed or bioenergy.  FLW may occur across the entire food supply chain and has significant  economic, environmental, or social effects on various stakeholders,  including businesses and consumers. For example, in 2014, the U.S.  Department of Agriculture (USDA) reported that FLW costs consumers  $371 per person each year.

According to a 2017 study, the environmental effects of FLW include  biodiversity loss and the use of resources, such as cropland, fertilizers,  and water, to grow food that is never eaten. In addition, in 2018 the  Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) reported that, based on 2015  data, food constituted 22 percent of all waste in landfills. Due to the lack  of oxygen, as food decays in landfills it produces methane, a greenhouse  gas that contributes to climate change. Furthermore, according to a 2018  USDA report, 40 million Americans lived in households that were food  insecure at some point during the previous year. Recovering edible food  is an opportunity to help feed people. For example, in 2016, ReFED  estimated that by increasing food recovery through food donations, food  businesses could feasibly provide an additional 1.8 billion meals over the  next decade.

FLW has been an issue of concern for decades. For example, we  reviewed USDA’s FLW reduction efforts in 1977. In September 2015,  EPA, which oversees municipal solid-waste management, and USDA,  which has overarching objectives related to reducing food insecurity and  improving food safety, among other things, announced a national goal to  reduce FLW in the United States by 50 percent by 2030, which aligns  with Target 12.3 of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals.  EPA and USDA each has its own definition and baseline estimate of FLW  that it intends to use to measure progress in reaching the 50 percent FLW  reduction goal based on their agency missions. In October 2018, EPA,  USDA, and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which has food  safety responsibilities, among other things, signed a formal agreement  aimed at increasing collaboration and coordination on FLW reduction  efforts among these agencies. Furthermore, in the Agriculture  Improvement Act of 2018, also known as the 2018 Farm Bill, Congress  tasked the Secretary of Agriculture with taking a number of actions to  address FLW, including conducting studies, and working with local  governments, among other things. Nonfederal stakeholders, such as  states and municipalities, tribes, international and nonprofit organizations,  the food industry, and academic institutions, are also involved with efforts  to study and reduce FLW. For example, the Massachusetts Department  of Environmental Protection supports residential FLW reduction efforts  through grants to cities and towns to promote residential composting, and  it implemented a regulation in 2014 that bans commercial entities from  disposing of or incinerating food waste at solid waste disposal facilities. In  addition, academic institutions, such as Harvard Law School’s Food Law  and Policy Clinic, have studied FLW issues and worked with stakeholders  to identify potential solutions, including working with various states to  develop legal fact sheets to help businesses and nonprofit organizations  understand the legal liability issues related to food donations.

You asked us to examine the actions federal agencies are taking to  address FLW. This report (1) describes nonfederal stakeholder views on  key challenges to reducing FLW in the United States, (2) describes  actions EPA and USDA have taken to address key challenges to reducing  FLW in the United States, and (3) examines federal planning efforts  toward achieving the national FLW reduction goal.

To address all our objectives, we reviewed documentation related to FLW  by selected federal agencies, including the Centers for Disease Control  and Prevention, Congressional Research Service, EPA, FDA, and USDA.  We interviewed agency officials from the Centers for Disease Control and  Prevention, Congressional Research Service, Council on Environmental  Quality (CEQ), EPA, FDA, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and  USDA.

To describe nonfederal stakeholder views on challenges to reducing  FLW, we reviewed documentation provided by selected nonfederal  stakeholders, such as academic institutions, food industry entities,  international organizations, municipalities, nonprofit organizations, states,  and a tribal organization and interviewed the stakeholders about their  views on such challenges and ways in which federal agencies could  potentially address these challenges. For example, we interviewed  representatives of the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization  (FAO) about the challenges it faces in developing a methodology for  measuring FLW at the national and food supply-chain stage levels.

We identified representatives of these nonfederal stakeholders through  interviews with agency officials and through a snowball approach, in  which we reviewed stakeholder documents to identify other key  stakeholders and asked stakeholders to recommend other key  stakeholders for possible inclusion in this review. We selected a  nongeneralizable sample of 26 nonfederal stakeholders based on  whether the stakeholders had demonstrated expertise on FLW by  conducting research or drafting reports about FLW issues at one or more  of the food supply-chain stages or by participating in FLW reduction  activities. Nonfederal stakeholders that met these selection criteria but  were not selected were excluded only due to time and resource  limitations. We conducted a thematic analysis of our interviews to identify  common patterns of challenges. Specifically, we reviewed nonfederal  stakeholder responses to our interview questions and grouped them into  categories of challenges that EPA, FDA, and USDA may be able to  address. Because this is a nongeneralizable sample, the views of these  nonfederal stakeholders do not represent the views of all stakeholders  who study FLW or who have made efforts to reduce FLW, but they  provide illustrative examples of challenges to reducing FLW and ways in  which federal agencies could address these challenges.

We also conducted site visits to businesses and institutions in  Massachusetts that are taking steps to reduce FLW. These site visits  were selected and organized by the Center for EcoTechnology, a  nonfederal stakeholder that we had previously interviewed, to provide  illustrative examples of ongoing FLW reduction efforts at the different  stages of the food supply chain. For example, we visited a farm in  Massachusetts that had collaborated with an energy company to develop  an anaerobic digestion facility to process FLW from local farms and other  sources. In addition, we toured a grocery store, hospital, university, and  restaurant that are each taking steps to reduce FLW through efforts such  as more efficient ordering, food donations to charitable organizations, and  composting.

We also attended various conferences and workshops dealing with  FLW. During these events, we used convenience sampling (i.e.,  interviewing attendees that were available for discussions) to capture a  broad range of perspectives across actors and sectors of the food supply  chain. These discussions were included for contextual sophistication, but  not for evidentiary purposes.

To examine actions EPA and USDA have taken to address the  challenges with reducing FLW in the United States, we reviewed EPA and  USDA reports, such as EPA’s Advancing Sustainable Materials  Management Fact Sheet reports and a 2014 USDA report on food loss  estimates. We also reviewed relevant legislative documents, such as  the Committee on Appropriations House Report 115-232 accompanying  H.R. 3268, which directs USDA’s Economic Research Service to conduct  a study that describes the quantity and types of produce wasted on farms,  barriers to recovering that produce, and new market opportunities to  increase recovery and farmers’ income. We also reviewed USDA’s  Strategic Plan and other documentation on USDA’s programs, studies,  and activities.

To assess federal efforts to plan toward achieving the national FLW  reduction goal, we reviewed and analyzed relevant laws and EPA, USDA,  and FDA policies, guidance, program information, and planning  documentation related to FLW. We also interviewed the selected  nonfederal stakeholders to determine the extent to which they have  collaborated with EPA, USDA, and FDA on FLW issues. We focused on  EPA, USDA, and FDA because these agencies made a commitment to  coordinate federal efforts to achieve the national FLW reduction goal. In  addition, we compared EPA, USDA, and FDA’s collaborative efforts for  planning to achieve the national FLW reduction goal to practices for  enhancing interagency collaboration that we identified in prior work.

We conducted this performance audit from December 2017 to June 2019  in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.  Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain  sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our  findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that  the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and  conclusions based on our audit objectives.

Federal Roles and Responsibilities Related to FLW Vary

In 2015, the President signed Executive Order 13693, “Planning for  Federal Sustainability in the Next Decade.” This executive order called for  federal agencies to, among other things, advance waste prevention and  pollution prevention in federal facilities, operations, and vehicles by  diverting at least 50 percent of nonhazardous solid waste, including food  and compostable material, but not construction and demolition debris, in  their internal operations annually, and pursue opportunities for net-zero  waste or additional diversion opportunities. In May 2018, Executive Order  13693 was revoked and replaced by Executive Order 13834, “Efficient  Federal Operations,” which directed federal agencies to implement waste  prevention and recycling measures but no longer included the specific  direction to divert at least 50 percent of nonhazardous solid waste,  including food and compostable material, annually or to pursue  opportunities for net-zero waste or additional diversion opportunities.  CEQ and OMB are responsible for implementing and tracking progress  for these executive orders.

Among its duties, EPA oversees municipal solid-waste management. For  example, EPA regulates the management of household, industrial, and  manufacturing solid and hazardous wastes under the Resource  Conservation and Recovery Act. The objectives of the act include  protecting the United States from the hazards of waste disposal, to  conserve energy and natural resources by recycling and recovery, and to  minimize the generation of hazardous waste. However, the management  of nonhazardous solid waste, such as food waste, is left primarily to the  states and local governments. Under the act, EPA established solid- waste management guidelines for municipalities that encouraged  recycling, including composting food and yard waste. EPA’s Sustainable  Materials Management Program, including the Sustainable Management  of Food strategic priority area, seeks to reduce the environmental impact  of materials through their entire life cycle. Furthermore, available landfill  space is decreasing in various parts of the United States; EPA’s FLW  activities may help extend the life of those existing landfills and provide  opportunities for energy generation.

According to USDA officials, USDA has developed a broad range of  programs and policies to reduce FLW as a means to support its  overarching objectives related to reducing food insecurity, improving food  safety, increasing market efficiencies, and enhancing farmer income  and rural development. USDA also conducts education and outreach  through its network of state and local offices, the Cooperative Extension  Service, state Departments of Agriculture, land-grant university partners,  and nongovernmental, nonprofit, community, and faith-based  organizations. Additionally, the 2018 Farm Bill requires the Secretary of  Agriculture to take a number of actions to address FLW: (1) create a FLW  Reduction Liaison to coordinate federal, state, local, and  nongovernmental programs, and other efforts, to measure and reduce the  incidence of FLW; (2) conduct a study on food waste in consultation with  the FLW Reduction Liaison and report data collected on food waste and  efforts to reduce and prevent such waste; (3) issue guidance outlining the  best practices to minimize food waste for donated commodities; (4) enter  into cooperative agreements with local or municipal governments to  develop and test strategies for planning and implementing municipal  compost plans and food waste reduction plans; (5) establish a milk  donation program to encourage the donation of milk products produced  and processed in the United States, assist individuals in low-income  groups, and reduce food waste; and (6) establish a Local Agriculture  Market Program to, among other things, promote new business  opportunities and marketing strategies to reduce on-farm food waste.

Finally, FDA, which is responsible for, among other things, overseeing the  safety of about 80 percent of the nation’s food supply, has a limited  mission related to FLW. FDA was not involved with establishing the  national FLW reduction goal in 2015 but, according to agency officials,  has become more engaged in consumer education and outreach to the  food industry, hunger relief and food rescue organizations, state and local  governments, academia, and other stakeholders on issues related to  FLW. By signing the 2018 formal agreement on collaboration and  coordination with EPA and USDA, FDA has committed to taking further  actions to reduce FLW.

Varying Definitions Inform Methodologies for Measuring Food Loss and Waste

Definitions of FLW vary among the various organizations, including  federal agencies, working in this area, which inform different  methodologies for measuring and reporting FLW. For example, consistent  with its focus on advancing the sustainable use of materials, including  food, throughout their life cycle to minimize waste and environmental  impacts, EPA uses the term “wasted food” instead of “food waste” for  food that is not used for its intended purpose because it conveys that a  resource with value is being wasted, whereas “food waste” implies that  the food no longer has value and needs to be managed as waste. EPA  states that “wasted food” is managed in a variety of ways, including  through donations to food banks, conversion to animal feed, composting,  anaerobic digestion, or sending it to landfills. In contrast, USDA’s  Economic Research Service (ERS) defines food loss as edible food that  is available for human consumption but that is not eaten. According to  ERS, food losses may occur for any number of reasons, including  cooking loss and natural shrinkage; loss from mold, pests, or inadequate  climate control; and plate waste, which refers to edible food that is served  but discarded. In addition, ERS defines food waste as a component of  food loss that refers to food discarded by retailers and consumers due to  quality concerns, such as blemished food. ERS takes this approach in  support of its effort to estimate the nation’s available food supplies, which  it adjusts to account for nonedible parts of foods and losses throughout  the food supply chain.

USDA has noted that definitions of FLW vary worldwide. For example,  FAO differentiates food loss from food waste based on the stage of the  food supply chain in which the amount of edible food decreased. FAO  refers to food loss as the decrease in edible food that occurs throughout  the production and processing stages of the food supply chain, whereas  food waste occurs at retail and consumer stages of the food supply chain.

These varying definitions have led to different methodologies for  measuring and reporting FLW. For example, EPA estimates the amount  of food from residences, commercial establishments (such as grocery  stores), and institutional establishments (such as schools) that is  disposed of through landfills or converted to energy, while ERS estimates  the amount, value, and calories of postharvest food losses at the retail  and consumer stages of the food supply chain. In addition, ERS and FAO  FLW estimates do not include inedible parts, whereas, with its focus on  materials management, EPA’s estimates do.

Food Loss and Waste Occurs throughout the Food Supply Chain, and Options to Reduce It Vary

FLW can occur across the entire food supply chain, occur at more than  one stage (e.g., spoilage), or be unique to a specific stage, as seen in  figure 1 below. However, the share of total FLW due to each of these  causes is currently unknown, according to a USDA report.

EPA’s Food Recovery Hierarchy, shown in figure 2 below, focuses on  different options for reducing FLW. According to EPA, the top levels of the  hierarchy are the best ways to reduce FLW because they create the most  benefits for the environment, society, and the economy. Source reduction  is the preferred option for reducing FLW because it provides the greatest  benefits in terms of environmental sustainability. This is because growing  food requires resources, such as land, water, fertilizer, and pesticides. In  contrast, food that is sent to landfills generates greenhouse gases, such  as methane.

Prevention refers to reducing the amount of surplus food generated at any stage of the food supply chain. For example, businesses, such as restaurants, may prevent FLW through better planning and food preparation techniques.

Diversion includes recovering food by donating edible food to feed hungry people or sending food scraps to feed animals. Diversion also includes recycling food scraps for industrial uses, such as waste-to- energy generation or anaerobic digestion, or for composting.

Disposal refers to food that is sent to landfills, incinerators, or washed into sewers.

According to USDA, some FLW is inevitable and, therefore, entirely  eliminating FLW is unrealistic. For example, USDA ERS reports that  there is a practical limit to how much FLW in the United States could be  reduced, given different factors, such as food safety concerns, the  perishability of foods, storage and temperature considerations, and risk  management for production and marketing uncertainties, and resource  constraints to recover uneaten food for another use, among others.  According to USDA officials, to be successful, FLW reduction strategies  should consider the economic incentives and disincentives faced by  stakeholders across the food supply chain.

Nonfederal Stakeholders Cited Various Challenges to Reducing Food Loss and Waste in the United States

Nonfederal stakeholders we interviewed cited various challenges that  exist to reducing FLW in the United States. Through our analysis of those  interviews, we identified three key areas: (1) limited data and information  about the amounts and causes of FLW; (2) a lack of awareness and  education about FLW; and (3) limited infrastructure and capacity, which  can hamper efforts to reduce FLW. In some instances, the nonfederal  stakeholders also provided their views for ways federal agencies could  potentially address the identified challenge areas.

Nonfederal Stakeholders Said Data and Information about Amounts and Causes of FLW Are Limited

Through interviews with nonfederal stakeholders, we identified limited  data and information about the amounts and causes of FLW as a  challenge to reducing FLW in the United States. For example, several  stakeholders told us that data gaps associated with the different food  supply-chain stages make it challenging to estimate FLW. For example:

An international organization published a study in 2011 that included estimates of FLW by different regions and different stages of the food supply chain. The organization reported in its study that there were major data gaps in the knowledge of global FLW, such as the causes of FLW. Representatives of this organization told us that a challenge to measuring and estimating FLW is the lack of data on the various stages of the food supply chain. They are proposing a new methodology intended to help countries measure FLW along the  supply chain in a cost-effective manner and monitor progress in  reducing FLW.

Researchers from two academic institutions told us there are challenges to estimating farm-production food losses. For example, researchers from one of these academic institutions told us that farm- production losses fluctuate from year to year based on changes in markets and growing conditions, such as weather, which can make estimating FLW more challenging. In addition, these researchers told us more information is needed about how different economic factors, such as the existence of secondary (alternative) markets to sell excess food, or changes in farming costs such as increases in labor costs, may influence FLW.

One nonprofit organization reported that data at the farm-production stage of the food supply chain are limited, including data on what happens to some food at that stage. For example, there are limited data about whether produce that goes unsold is tilled back into the farmland, composted, or sent to a landfill. This nonprofit organization reported the limitations of its estimate of FLW across the food supply chain in the United States. For example, the nonprofit organization documented in its FLW estimate methodology that its farm-production FLW data analysis focused on estimating imperfect-produce rates, but noted that FLW may occur at this stage for a variety of reasons, including inclement weather, pests, or overproduction. It also documented that future research efforts could assess actual produce imperfection and loss rates for each produce type using geographical differences to improve estimate accuracy.

Representatives from another nonprofit organization that has published an estimate of FLW told us there are data gaps about FLW along the food supply chain. For example, this nonprofit organization reported in 2017 that improved research is needed regarding farm- production data and FLW estimates of the consumer stage of the food supply stage. In addition, this nonprofit organization reported that one challenge is the absence of standardized measurement methodologies and common metrics to help entities representing all  food supply-chain stages accurately estimate FLW, develop strategies  to reduce FLW, and measure progress. In this report, they noted that  federal agencies’ efforts to develop a mechanism to aggregate and  disseminate FLW information as it is gathered by businesses and  institutions, among others, would be beneficial to all stakeholders.

Representatives of a third nonprofit organization stated that FLW measurement methodologies need to be tailored to the particular stages of the food supply chain and that the strategies to reduce FLW need to respond to the conditions associated with specific foods.

Nonfederal Stakeholders Identified a Lack of Education and Awareness about FLW

Nonfederal stakeholders identified a lack of education and awareness  about FLW as a challenge to reducing FLW. For example, an official from  one state told us that there is a lack of awareness among various  organizations about the benefits of preventing FLW. Specifically:

One state official told us that there is a lack of awareness among food producers, businesses, and consumers about the benefits of preventing FLW. According to this official, to address this challenge the state developed a strategic action plan that prioritizes focusing upstream in the food supply chain to prevent FLW, as opposed to the more traditional focus on increasing FLW diversion, such as through composting. This official also told us that implementing organic waste (e.g., food waste or other plant and animal materials) bans, which prohibit specified waste generators from sending food waste to landfills, as several states are doing to reduce FLW, tends to promote FLW reduction activities further down on EPA’s Food Recovery Hierarchy. As a result, organic waste bans may contribute relatively little to reducing FLW or maximizing the benefits of such reductions. This official emphasized that additional steps are needed to increase awareness about the benefits of prioritizing prevention through shifts in supply chains, purchasing, and consumption patterns to reduce FLW.

Officials from two states told us there is a lack of resources to support efforts to educate consumers about FLW. For example, one state official told us that the state agency has insufficient staff resources to do effective outreach regarding FLW, and current staff members do not yet have the expertise to fully educate and assist consumers and businesses about all options available to reduce FLW. Another state official told us that the state would like to do a state-wide social marketing campaign to disseminate education and information about FLW to household consumers, but the state lacks sufficient resources  to launch such an effort.

Representatives of a nonprofit food donation organization identified a lack of education and awareness about date labeling as one of the challenges to reducing FLW. For example, the representatives told us that consumer confusion about date labels may be an impediment to reducing FLW among consumers. However, in these representatives’ view, reducing date labeling confusion is unlikely to lead to additional food donations. In addition, an academic institution representative, in collaboration with other authors, reported that a driver of household FLW is consumer confusion over date labels and conducted a survey to gain information about consumer perceptions of date labels. They concluded from their research that increasing consumer education on the meaning of date labels can help to reduce FLW.

A representative of a nonprofit food donation organization told us that education and awareness about liability protections and compliance are lacking for various potential food donors and may hinder some food producers from donating food and, by extension, reducing FLW.

Nonfederal Stakeholders Said Limited Infrastructure and Capacity Can Hamper Efforts to Reduce FLW

Through interviews with nonfederal stakeholders, we identified that limited  infrastructure and capacity is a challenge that can hamper efforts to  reduce FLW. For example:

Representatives of a nonprofit food donation organization that receives food donations cited a lack of sufficient capacity and logistical support to collect and distribute available food. For example, representatives told us that food pantries may not have a sufficient volunteer workforce or enough food storage capacity to be able to distribute all donated food to needy people.

Food industry representatives told us that businesses have infrastructure limitations, such as a lack of transportation options to deliver excess food to food pantries or composting facilities. For example, representatives told us that if such facilities were available, food scraps, such as produce peels, could be used as animal feed or composted. However, if the infrastructure to utilize these options is not  available, the companies generating the FLW may opt to send it to  landfills instead.

An official from one state told us that the state does not have access to the infrastructure and capacity needed to separate contaminants in order to be able to divert FLW for other uses, such as animal feed, composting, or anaerobic digestion. For example, this state official told us that the state does not have access to the necessary equipment to separate plastic and other packaging materials from food waste in order to be able to process FLW through anaerobic digesters. Officials of another state provided a study stating that removing packaging from food waste can be an obstacle to successful FLW diversion and that separation of food waste for composting or other diversion can be costly. In addition, a representative of one international organization told us that federal agencies could facilitate a collaborative approach with industry stakeholders to develop voluntary industry standards on food packaging materials and food portion sizes to help reduce FLW in the United States.

Officials from another state told us that a lack of food recycling infrastructure limits their ability to enforce the state’s organic waste ban and reduce FLW. A state official told us that the state has one anaerobic digester facility to process food waste, but additional recycling infrastructure would be needed statewide to enable food waste generators, such as hospitals or schools, to recycle their food waste instead of sending it to landfills.

EPA and USDA Have Taken Initial Actions to Address Key Challenge Areas to Reducing Food Loss and Waste

Since announcing the national FLW reduction goal in 2015, EPA and  USDA have taken initial actions to address challenges in the three key  areas that nonfederal stakeholders identified to reduce FLW. For  example, EPA and USDA have taken actions to provide improved data  and information about FLW in the United States; educate and increase  awareness of FLW along the food supply chain; and expand the  infrastructure and capacity to support efforts to reduce FLW.

EPA and USDA Have Provided Some Data and Information on Food Loss and Waste in the United States

EPA and USDA have provided some data and information about FLW in  the United States. Specifically:  In a 2018 report, EPA published trends of food waste materials generation, among other materials, and provided updated information about municipal solid waste being generated, recycled or composted, landfilled, and combusted with energy recovery using 2015 data from residential, commercial, and institutional sources. According to EPA, food waste represents the largest percentage of landfilled material in municipal solid waste, as seen in figure 3 below. EPA relies on gathering these data on food waste generation and management from studies conducted by other organizations, such as state and local governments and food waste generators.

EPA measures certain FLW diversion activities (i.e., divert food to a destination other than landfill or incineration). For example, in September 2018 EPA completed an effort to quantify the number and  capacity of anaerobic digestion facilities in the United States. EPA  also aggregates and publishes data submitted by EPA’s Food  Recovery Challenge program participants on recycling fats, oils, and  grease, which may otherwise be disposed of through wastewater. For  example, participating restaurants may submit data on the amount of  fats from their fryer grease containers that they send for recycling  through rendering, conversion to biofuels, or to an anaerobic digester.  In addition, EPA develops estimates of food waste composting based  on a review of state environmental agency websites, as well as  published reports.

EPA updates its FLW estimates annually. EPA officials stated that these annual estimates are the most comprehensive annual estimates of generated and managed FLW and that EPA plans to use these estimates to track progress. However, EPA officials acknowledged certain limitations in using these estimates to track annual progress against the 2030 goal. For example, EPA officials stated that data challenges include limited studies available for some sectors and the lack of geographic coverage, among others. EPA is taking steps to improve its FLW estimates. For example, officials stated that in 2017 EPA embarked on an effort to improve its food measurement methodology to reflect all potential FLW generating sectors for which there are data, and to characterize how food is being managed beyond composting and landfill.

USDA has also provided some data and information about FLW at  various stages of the food supply chain in the United States since 2015.  Specifically:

ERS is working on initiatives to refine and improve its data system in order to support its ongoing efforts to estimate FLW at the retail and consumer stages of the food supply chain. For example, USDA officials told us they are developing a proposal for an external expert panel to analyze food loss estimates at the consumer stage of the food supply chain and make recommendations for data updates. In addition, USDA officials told us that work is under way to update the retail-level loss estimates of selected foods.

In addition, in December 2017, ERS initiated work on a study to identify gaps in information about farm-level FLW. According to ERS officials, as part of the study, ERS will describe the existing data- collection challenges and address the economic factors that influence farmers’ decisions as they relate to FLW at the farm level. For example, one factor could involve a farmer deciding to plow excess produce into the fields instead of harvesting or processing the crop if the potential additional labor or operations costs exceed the potential revenue. One senior ERS official told us that ERS expects to issue the study by the end of calendar year 2019. Additionally, ERS officials told us that USDA could use the final study to inform USDA’s policy approaches to reducing FLW. For example, the report may inform USDA’s efforts to assist farmers in implementing best practices in reducing FLW and expanding market opportunities for imperfect fruits and vegetables or excess harvest.

USDA’s National Institute for Food and Agriculture has provided grant funding to projects related to FLW. For example, the institute awarded a grant in 2018 to an academic institution to study the effect of secondary markets as alternative channels for usable food.

To advance the research mission of the agency, among other reasons, USDA has a memorandum of understanding with the Foundation for Food and Agriculture Research, an organization that Congress authorized as part of the 2014 Farm Bill. The Foundation for Food and Agriculture Research conducts research in six defined challenge areas, including one area that focuses research on inefficiencies in the food system, such as FLW.

EPA and USDA Have Taken Some Actions to Educate and Build Awareness about Food Loss and Waste

EPA and USDA have taken some actions to educate and build  awareness about FLW in the United States since announcing the national  FLW reduction goal in 2015. For example, EPA published its Sustainable  Materials Management Program Strategic Plan, Fiscal Years 2017-2022  in October 2015. One of the plan’s three strategic priority areas is  Sustainable Food Management, which includes an action area of  promoting opportunities to reduce wasted food and the food’s associated  effects over the entire food supply-chain life cycle with a preference for  using approaches that are higher on the agency’s Food Recovery  Hierarchy. EPA’s strategic plan describes delivering tools and education;  working with states and local communities to help provide regional or  sector-based support; and sharing best practices on wasted-food  reduction efforts. In addition to the planned actions identified in the  Sustainable Food Management area, EPA has also provided the following  FLW education and awareness tools, among others:  Food: Too Good to Waste. This community-based social marketing campaign, implementation guide, and toolkit aim to reduce wasteful household food management practices and keep FLW out of landfills. The toolkit is designed for community organizations, local governments, households, and others interested in reducing wasteful household food management practices. The implementation guide is designed to teach local governments and community organizations how to implement a Food Too Good to Waste campaign in their community using the toolkit. In a 2016 report, EPA listed 17 communities in various states, including Rhode Island and Vermont, that had implemented Food Too Good to Waste campaigns and, as part of this implementation, could use outreach and engagement tools adaptable to the needs of their communities based on their available resources. The campaigns focused on helping households make small shifts in how they shop, prepare, and store food to prevent it from being wasted.

Waste Reduction Model. According to the agency’s website, EPA created this tool to help solid-waste planners and organizations track greenhouse gas emissions reductions from several different waste- management practices, including source reduction, recycling, anaerobic digestion, combustion, composting, and landfilling. For example, a food service establishment can use the tool to create an estimate of the greenhouse gas savings associated with decreasing  the amount of bread and produce landfilled.

Tip sheets. EPA developed tip sheets about reducing FLW for different sectors involved in the food supply chain, including manufacturers and restaurants, to emphasize FLW prevention options. EPA officials told us that they make these tip sheets available online on the agency’s website and attend conferences to disseminate information. For example, the officials said that they attended the Midwest Food Recovery Summit in September 2018 and provided these tip sheets at the EPA information booth during the conference.

In addition, USDA has been involved in the following FLW reduction  efforts to raise awareness and educate various stakeholders along the  food supply chain:  FLW roundtable meeting. In May 2018, the Secretary of Agriculture hosted a roundtable meeting with members of Congress, food industry representatives, and nonprofit groups to raise awareness about FLW and discuss potential solutions.

FoodKeeper application. In 2015, USDA, in partnership with Cornell University and the Food Marketing Institute, launched the FoodKeeper application, a tool to provide consumers with specific storage advice, including storage timelines for the refrigerator and freezer for food and beverage items. USDA officials stated that the agency updated the application in October 2018 to include various features including searching for food and beverages in Spanish and increasing the number of food items with storage information. USDA has continued to highlight the FoodKeeper application as part of USDA and EPA’s Food Waste Challenge effort to help educate consumers to reduce FLW.

Infographic. Also in 2015, the USDA Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion issued an infographic, “Let’s Talk Trash,” to help inform American consumers about the benefits of reducing FLW, as shown in figure 4. USDA made the infographic available on its  www.choosemyplate.gov website, which includes additional resources  to help consumers think about the amount of FLW at home.

Strategies for schools. In 2015, USDA’s Food and Nutrition Service issued a summary of strategies for schools to reduce FLW that included a list of resources to encourage FLW diversion by donating uneaten food to nonprofit institutions and information about composting. The Food and Nutrition Service also recommended that schools introduce “share tables” into cafeterias so that students could exchange unwanted but otherwise edible food items. In June 2016, USDA issued a memorandum to remind states’ Child Nutrition  Program directors of the opportunities to use share tables to reduce  FLW in a number of Child Nutrition Programs, such as the National  School Lunch Program. In July 2016, the Food and Nutrition Service  issued guidance directed at school staff members and students,  among others, with tips to prevent FLW, including encouraging  students to use share tables.

To further provide information, raise awareness, and educate different  stakeholders along the food supply chain, EPA and USDA have  collaborated on the following FLW reduction efforts:

A Guide to Conducting Student Food Waste Audits. In 2017, EPA, USDA, and the University of Arkansas collaborated to create this guide for students and school personnel about the amount of FLW in their cafeterias. The guide provides information on why and how to do a food waste audit and what to do with the data collected. It also offers FLW prevention ideas.

Public/private partnerships. EPA and USDA support public/private partnerships to provide key information, solutions, and best practices to reduce FLW across the food supply chain. For example, EPA and USDA established the U.S. Food Loss and Waste 2030 Champions initiative in November 2016 as a way to increase efforts to meet the national FLW reduction goal. This 2030 Champions initiative recognizes organizations that have committed to cutting FLW in their own operations in half by 2030 and encourages Champions to report on their progress. In May 2018, EPA hosted a public webinar to highlight the actions of three 2030 Champions to share best practices, tools, and resources these organizations created to prevent food from going to waste. In March 2019, USDA officials told us that eight additional businesses have joined the 15 Champions involved in the initiative since its launch. In addition, EPA and USDA also support Further With Food, an online hub developed by EPA, USDA, and 10 other organizations that provides information and solutions to raise  public awareness and reduce FLW.

Participation in external conferences. EPA and USDA have conducted outreach, including through participation in conferences and seminars, and have disseminated resources related to FLW. For example, EPA and USDA each sent an official to attend and present at the National Academies of Science’s Reducing Food Loss and Waste: A Workshop on Impacts in October 2018. USDA officials told us they helped fund this workshop and helped develop the workshop’s objectives, which were to explore the effects of reducing FLW on food availability and other factors; to examine the role of governments, nongovernmental organizations, and the private sector in adopting best practices to improve the benefits and reduce the costs of reducing FLW; and to discuss opportunities for partnerships to address FLW.

USDA has also collaborated with FDA to address FLW. For example,  USDA and FDA are both on the Executive Board of the Conference for  Food Protection, an organization that brings together representatives  from the food industry, government, academia, and consumer  organizations to identify and address emerging problems of food safety.  In April 2016, this group released a Comprehensive Resource for Food  Recovery Programs to reduce FLW through the recovery of consumable  food. This report is intended to assist stakeholders involved in the  recovery, distribution, or service of food to people who are food insecure.  The report references the national food standards at the retail level, as  expressed in the FDA Food Code, to minimize the occurrence of risk  factors that contribute to foodborne illness. FDA contributed to the  submission of an issue to the 2018 Biennial Meeting of the Conference  for Food Protection that sought to promote uniformity in the way in which  state and local governments regulate food donation and recovery  operations in retail and foodservice establishments. In addition, FDA  has disseminated information to the public about strategies to reduce  FLW while maintaining food safety and has referred to USDA’s  FoodKeeper application as a resource for learning how to store  perishable food and employ safe storage practices.

EPA and USDA Have Taken Some Actions to Increase Infrastructure and Capacity to Support Efforts to Reduce FLW

EPA and USDA have each taken some actions to increase infrastructure  and capacity to support efforts to reduce FLW in the United States.

EPA has taken some actions to increase infrastructure and capacity to  reduce FLW in the United States. For example:  Technical assistance. EPA provides technical assistance to state and local governments in developing anaerobic digestion projects, a technology to process wasted food that is more desirable than landfilling or incineration, according to EPA’s Food Recovery Hierarchy.

Excess Food Opportunities Map. EPA’s Excess Food Opportunities Map displays the locations of more than 500,000 industrial, commercial, and institutional food generators that may potentially produce excess food and more than 4,000 potential recipients of that excess food. The map also provides information at the specific establishment–level, including estimates of excess food generation that may help users identify alternatives to sending excess food to landfills. The map helps users identify potential infrastructure gaps for managing excess food, inform FLW management decisions at the local level, and identify potential sources of food for rescue and reuse, among other purposes. An EPA official told us that the communication plan for the launch of the Excess Food Opportunities Map included a webinar announcing the map in July 2018 and providing presentations about the map at various conferences, including during the National Academies Reducing Food Loss and Waste Workshop in October 2018. The official also stated that emails about the map were sent to over 13,000 people and approximately 700 people attended the  webinar EPA hosted in July 2018.

Recycling infrastructure. EPA’s Sustainable Materials Management program’s strategic plan describes EPA’s role in providing states, businesses, and other stakeholders with, among other things, tools, guidelines, and technical support to more effectively manage waste, including by helping increase recycling infrastructure. In May 2018, EPA cohosted a recycling infrastructure workshop to identify solutions for creating infrastructure for anaerobic digestion and composting. In addition, EPA officials told us that the agency is in the process of updating its recycling guide for state and local governments and they anticipate completing it by the end of 2020.

USDA also has taken some actions to increase infrastructure and  capacity to reduce FLW in the United States. For example:  Food programs. USDA officials told us that USDA food programs, such as The Emergency Food Assistance Program, support efforts to feed people and to provide access to affordable and nutritious food. For example, food donation organizations that are recipients of program funds may use these funds to pay the direct expenses associated with the distribution of USDA foods, such as fruits, vegetables, and beans.

New FLW-reduction technologies. USDA’s Agricultural Research Service has various research programs, including one to enhance the quality and utilization of agricultural products. Potential benefits listed as part of this research program are minimizing food product losses and reducing FLW through the development of farm production technologies, such as the development of an apple-sorting system that will help reduce apple harvest losses. According to USDA officials, most of the innovations of this research program involve creating value-added products from “ugly produce” or from food processing byproducts, such as orange peel or mushroom-stalk waste, or creating new technologies to prolong the shelf life of food products.

Meat and poultry donation rules. USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service issued a directive that outlines procedures for donating certain meat and poultry products to nonprofit organizations. The Food Safety and Inspection Service has also  begun, under certain circumstances, to recognize food banks as  “retail-type” establishments, which allows food banks to break down  bulk shipments of federally inspected meat or poultry products, wrap  or rewrap those products, and label the products for distribution to  consumers. In one case, this recognition enabled a nonprofit  organization engaged in food donations to gain 2.6 million pounds of  food donations from manufacturers in 2016, according to USDA  documents.

Grant funding. USDA’s Rural Utilities Service has provided some funding to support FLW reduction infrastructure in rural communities. For example, USDA awarded a 2016 USDA Rural Utilities Service Solid Waste Management grant to the University of Iowa’s Waste Reduction Center, which has worked toward addressing the issue of FLW disposal. More recently, in 2018, USDA awarded a solid-waste management grant to the Center for EcoTechnology, a nonprofit that provides technical assistance to implement FLW diversion programs.

Low-interest loans. USDA’s Farm Storage Facility Loan Program provides low-interest loans for producers to store, handle, and transport the food they produce. The loans are designed to assist a diverse range of farming operations, including small and midsized businesses and operations supplying local food and farmers markets. The program helps keep food from being damaged by pests or inclement weather, among other things, so that more food can reach store shelves.

Funding for renewable energy systems. USDA’s Rural Energy for America Program provides grants and loan guarantees to farmers, ranchers, and eligible small businesses to install renewable energy and energy-efficiency systems. For example, according to a Rural Energy for America Program Fact Sheet, funds may be used for the purchase, installation, and construction of renewable energy systems, such as anaerobic digesters. In a 2016 USDA Rural Development report, USDA provided examples of anaerobic digesters that use FLW  to produce a biogas that is converted into energy.

EPA, USDA, and FDA Have Done Some Initial Planning toward Achieving the National FLW Reduction Goal

EPA and USDA have each taken some actions to plan and organize their  efforts toward achieving the national FLW reduction goal, such as issuing  strategic plans and establishing working groups. Additionally, EPA,  USDA, and FDA signed a joint agency formal agreement in October 2018  aimed at increasing collaboration and coordination among the agencies  on FLW reduction efforts. EPA, USDA, and FDA only recently initiated  their interagency collaboration on FLW reduction efforts toward achieving  the national FLW reduction goal, but have not yet taken certain steps that  align with key practices for interagency collaboration.

EPA has taken actions to guide its own efforts toward achieving the  national FLW reduction goal. For example, in 2015, EPA issued a  strategic plan that included a strategic priority area of sustainable food  management. Subsequently, EPA developed an internal planning  document (U.S. EPA Sustainable Management of Food Strategy, Fiscal  Year 2018-2022). This planning document established action areas,  goals, and activities for reducing FLW to achieve the national FLW  reduction goal. For example, the plan identified five action areas,  including addressing data and measurement issues, collaboration and  partnerships, technical assistance, infrastructure and capacity, and  communication and outreach. According to EPA officials, the agency  intends to use the plan to track its progress and measure results towards  the national FLW reduction goal.

USDA has also taken actions to guide its own efforts toward achieving the  national FLW reduction goal. For example, according to USDA officials,  the department established a FLW working group in 2015 that currently  meets on a monthly basis. According to officials from the Office of the  Chief Economist and ERS, the department also designated an individual  within the Office of the Chief Economist to guide USDA’s FLW efforts. In  addition, in March 2016, the National Institute for Food and Agriculture’s  Pilot Science Outcome Committee on Environmental Sustainability  identified FLW as a top science priority area to address environmental  sustainability. According to the committee, FLW is an integral  component of environmental sustainability, and mitigating FLW has the  potential to create economic, environmental, and social benefits while  contributing to food security, resource conservation, and the mitigation of  climate change.

Furthermore, EPA and USDA have contributed to the work of the  Commission for Environmental Cooperation, an intergovernmental  organization established by the governments of Canada, Mexico, and the  United States to facilitate effective cooperation on the conservation,  protection, and enhancement of the environment in their territories. The  organization has an initiative to identify challenges, opportunities, and  solutions related to increasing organic waste diversion and processing  capacity in North America. This organization issued a report in 2017  about, among other things, the management of organic waste and best  practices for reducing FLW and diverting other organic waste materials  away from landfills. EPA is on the steering committee for this effort.  According to an EPA announcement in March 2019, the commission  issued a practical guide and technical report on FLW measurement.

Moreover, in October 2018, the Secretary of Agriculture hosted a public  meeting to promote FLW reduction. During this meeting, EPA, USDA, and  FDA signed a formal interagency agreement referred to by the agencies  as the Winning on Reducing Food Waste initiative. Under this 2-year  agreement, the agencies committed to developing an interagency  strategic plan to increase collaboration and coordination among the  agencies on their FLW reduction efforts. According to the agreement, this  additional collaboration is intended to strategically align each agency’s  efforts to better educate Americans on the impacts of reducing FLW. The  agencies also agreed to, where appropriate, educate actors throughout  the supply chain on the best practices to reduce FLW in the growing,  manufacturing, transporting, selling, and disposing of food and the  handling, preparation, and storage of food, as well as creating new uses  for excess food. The formal agreement mentions public-private  partnerships and, according to EPA officials, the agencies intend to use  the views of stakeholders in the public, private, and nonprofit sectors to  inform their strategic plan. According to EPA officials, the agencies intend  to discuss common goals and to identify additional initiatives as  appropriate to achieve the national FLW reduction goal. In announcing  this initiative, the Secretary of Agriculture affirmed the importance of  reducing FLW by saying that “an unacceptable percentage of our food  supply is lost or wasted” and that “as the world’s population continues to  grow and the food systems continue to evolve, now is the time for action  to educate consumers and businesses alike on the need for food waste  reduction.” In addition, the FDA Commissioner stated that “by taking  steps to address obstacles that food donation and recovery programs  may face in giving unsold foods a second opportunity and helping food  producers find ways to recondition their products so that they can be  safely sold or donated, our aim is to both reduce food waste and nourish  Americans in need.”

In April 2019, the agencies held a public event to announce their Winning  on Reducing Food Waste Federal Interagency Strategy. This strategic  plan identified six prioritized action areas for activities to reduce FLW. For  example, the agencies plan to, among other things, increase consumer  education and outreach efforts; increase coordination and guidance on  FLW measurement; and clarify and communicate information on food  safety, food date labels, and food donations. In addition, the agencies  signed a formal agreement with ReFED to, among other things, better  evaluate and improve upon strategies to reduce FLW. For example,  according to the 2019 agreement, the agencies and ReFED intend to  leverage existing partnerships to advance data-collection and  measurement activities related to FLW. Finally, EPA announced that it  had selected three recipients to receive EPA funding to support  infrastructure projects to help reduce FLW and divert FLW from landfills.

In our prior work, we have found that key practices to enhance and  sustain interagency collaboration include agreeing on roles and  responsibilities and developing mechanisms to monitor, evaluate, and  report on results. In addition, we have found that key practices for  agency collaboration call for clearly defining short- and long-term  outcomes. Furthermore, such interagency efforts benefit from identifying  how leadership commitment will be sustained. Lastly, we identified a  key practice that calls for ensuring that the relevant stakeholders have  been included in the collaborative effort. This collaboration can include  other federal agencies, state and local entities, and private and nonprofit  organizations.

According to the strategic plan, the agencies built on information from  several sources, including prior GAO work on implementing interagency  collaborative mechanisms, to develop the Winning on Reducing Food  Waste Federal Interagency Strategy. However, this strategic plan does  not align with certain key practices for interagency collaboration. For  example, the first priority area identified in the strategic plan is to enhance  interagency collaboration, and the strategic plan states that an  interagency, collaborative mechanism will be established to reduce  programmatic redundancies and leverage complementary activities.  However, the strategic plan does not identify how this mechanism will be  used to monitor, evaluate, or report on results, establish a time frame for  developing this collaborative mechanism, or describe how the agencies  will engage relevant stakeholders, such as other federal, state, and local  agencies, nonprofit organizations, academic institutions, food industry  entities, international organizations, and tribal organizations. In addition,  several of the strategic plan’s priority areas address specific aspects of  reducing FLW, such as encouraging FLW reduction by federal agencies  in their respective facilities. However, the strategic plan does not identify  the roles and responsibilities of the respective agencies for taking action  in these areas and it does not clearly define what specific short- and long- term outcomes the agencies intend to achieve. Furthermore, the agencies  have not identified how they intend to sustain leadership commitment to  this goal. For example, the Winning on Reducing Food Waste formal  interagency collaborative agreement is a 2-year agreement among the  agencies, but the national FLW reduction goal calls for reducing FLW by  half by 2030, which falls well beyond this 2-year time frame. According to  a USDA official, the agencies do not have plans for how they will continue  their interagency collaboration beyond the life of the current agreement.  This official noted that the agencies do not intend to update the strategic  plan for the duration of the 2-year agreement and that the agencies will  release more information to the public about specific actions and  timelines as it becomes available. By incorporating leading practices for  interagency collaboration as they implement their interagency strategic  plan, EPA, USDA, and FDA would have better assurance that they are  effectively collaborating toward achieving the national FLW reduction  goal.

Achieving the national FLW reduction goal could provide significant  economic, environmental, and social benefits to the United States, such  as helping to lower consumer expenses, reducing harmful greenhouse  gas emissions, and providing additional meals to feed food-insecure  people through increased food donations. This is an important issue that  requires action across the food supply chain and collaboration among  federal agencies and nonfederal stakeholders, such as states and  businesses. EPA and USDA have taken steps to develop programs and  policies that aim to reduce FLW and to collaborate on their various  initiatives. In addition, EPA, USDA, and FDA have taken some actions to  plan and organize their efforts toward achieving the national goal of  reducing FLW by half by 2030, including announcing an interagency  strategic plan to reduce FLW. However, this strategic plan does not align  with key practices in interagency collaboration that we have identified,  such as agreeing on roles and responsibilities; developing mechanisms to  monitor, evaluate, and report on results; clearly defining short- and long- term outcomes; identifying how leadership commitment will be sustained;  and ensuring that the relevant stakeholders have been included in the  collaborative effort. By incorporating such leading practices for  interagency collaboration as they implement their interagency strategic  plan, EPA, USDA, and FDA would have better assurance that they are  effectively collaborating toward achieving the national FLW reduction  goal.

We are making three recommendations to the agencies in our review.  Specifically:  The Administrator of EPA should work with the Commissioner of FDA and Secretary of Agriculture to incorporate leading collaboration practices as they implement their interagency FLW reduction strategic plan, to include (1) agreeing on roles and responsibilities; (2) developing mechanisms to monitor, evaluate, and report on results; (3) clearly defining short- and long-term outcomes; (4) identifying how leadership commitment will be sustained; and (5) ensuring that the relevant stakeholders have been included in the collaborative effort. (Recommendation 1)

The Commissioner of FDA should work with the Administrator of EPA and Secretary of Agriculture to incorporate leading collaboration practices as they implement their interagency FLW reduction strategic plan, to include (1) agreeing on roles and responsibilities; (2) developing mechanisms to monitor, evaluate, and report on results; (3) clearly defining short- and long-term outcomes; (4) identifying how leadership commitment will be sustained; and (5) ensuring that the relevant stakeholders have been included in the collaborative effort. (Recommendation 2)

The Secretary of Agriculture should work with Administrator of EPA and Commissioner of FDA to incorporate leading collaboration practices as they implement their interagency FLW reduction strategic plan, to include (1) agreeing on roles and responsibilities; (2) developing mechanisms to monitor, evaluate, and report on results; (3) clearly defining short- and long-term outcomes; (4) identifying how leadership commitment will be sustained; and (5) ensuring that the relevant stakeholders have been included in the collaborative effort. (Recommendation 3)

We provided a draft of this report to EPA, USDA, and the Department of  Health and Human Services for review and comment. We also provided  CEQ and OMB a draft of this report for review. In its comments,  reproduced in appendix I, EPA agreed with our recommendation to the  agency and described current and future actions to implement the  recommendation. Similarly, in its comments, reproduced in appendix II,  USDA agreed with our recommendation to it and described current and  future actions to implement the recommendation. In addition, in its  comments, reproduced in appendix III, the Department of Health and  Human Services concurred with our recommendation to it and described  current and future actions to implement the recommendation. USDA and  CEQ provided technical comments, which we incorporated as  appropriate.

In response to our recommendations, EPA, USDA, and the Department of  Health and Human Services said that they will work with each other to  incorporate leading collaboration practices as they implement the  interagency FLW reduction strategic plan. Both EPA and USDA also  stated that they intend to complete implementation of their respective  recommendations by October 2020, to align with the duration of the 2- year formal agreement between EPA, USDA, and FDA. The Department  of Health and Human Services stated that FDA issued a letter to the food  industry supporting the industry’s efforts to standardize voluntary quality  date labeling.

We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional  committees, the Administrator of EPA, the Secretary of Agriculture, the  Secretary of Health and Human Services, the Director of OMB, the Chair  of CEQ, and other interested parties. In addition, the report will be  available at no charge on the GAO website at http://www.gao.gov.

If you or your staff members have any questions concerning this report,  please contact me at (202) 512-3841 or morriss@gao.gov. Contact points  for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be  found on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made key  contributions to this report are listed in appendix IV.

Appendix I: Comments from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Appendix II: Comments from the U.S. Department of Agriculture

Appendix III: Comments from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

In addition to the contact named above, Anne K. Johnson (Assistant  Director), Joseph Capuano (Analyst in Charge), David Bennett, Carol  Bray, Tara Congdon, Juan Garay, Serena Lo, Greg Marchand, Jordan  Mettica, Oliver Richard, Dan Royer, Marie Suding, Kiki Theodoropoulos,  and Sarah Veale made key contributions to this report.

Millions of Americans are unsure about where their next meal will come from. Meanwhile, about 40% of the U.S. food supply goes uneaten. This issue requires action across the food supply chain and collaboration among federal and state agencies, businesses, communities, and more.

Federal agencies announced an interagency plan to cut food waste in half by 2030. But the plan doesn't indicate agreement on agency roles and responsibilities, and it doesn't address how they will evaluate and report on results—key practices for effective collaboration.

We recommended that federal agencies put key practices into their plan to reduce food waste.


Post-9/11 GI Bill: Veterans Affected by School Closures

The Post-9/11 GI Bill is VA's largest educational program. It provides payments for eligible veterans to cover tuition and fees, housing and other costs while they pursue a higher education. However, for some veterans this pursuit is interrupted when the school they attend unexpectedly closes.

This testimony addresses (1) the distribution of Post-9/11 GI Bill tuition and fee payments among schools, (2) outcomes of students at schools that receive the most Post-9/11 GI Bill payments, and (3) how school closures can affect student veterans.

To address these topics, GAO reviewed VA data on Post-9/11 GI Bill tuition and fee payments to schools for fiscal year 2017, the most recent school-level data available. GAO analyzed student outcome measures for these schools using Department of Education data reported for school year 2017-2018. GAO also reviewed its prior reports issued between 2013 and 2017 on school closures, credit transfers, and related challenges faced by student veterans.

In fiscal year 2017, nearly 700,000 student veterans used their Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to attend programs at almost 6,000 schools. Of the almost $4.5 billion in Post-9/11 GI Bill tuition and fee payments VA made to schools in fiscal year 2017, about 40 percent went to public schools, 30 percent to nonprofits, and 30 percent to for-profits. A small number of schools received a large share of the tuition and fees paid, with 30 percent of payments totaling $1.4 billion going to 50 schools that enrolled over 190,000 veterans in fiscal year 2017.

The average student outcomes at the 50 schools that received the highest total amount of Post-9/11 GI Bill tuition and fee payments in fiscal year 2017 were generally comparable to the national averages, but varied widely when examined by school sector. For example, the average 4-year program graduation rate for the top 50 schools was the same as the national average (61 percent). Within the top 50 schools, average graduation rates varied between public (73 percent), nonprofit (66 percent) and for-profit schools (22 percent).

Although a relatively small number of schools close each year, these closures can affect thousands of student veterans. School closures, which have increased in recent years, are particularly harmful when they involve large schools that close abruptly with little or no advance warning. For example, more than 7,000 veterans receiving Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits were attending schools operated by Corinthian Colleges and ITT Educational Services when they abruptly closed in 2015 and 2016, respectively. Although veterans affected by school closures may qualify to have their GI Bill benefits restored, these closures can create hardships for veterans and significant costs for taxpayers. For example, veterans can face challenges transferring credits and continuing their education at a new school. This may make it more difficult for veterans to complete their degrees before exhausting their eligibility for Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits. School closures also pose a financial risk for the government and taxpayers due to the costs associated with restoring benefits.

I am pleased to be here today to discuss the effect of school closures on  student veterans. The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has provided  $94 billion in education benefits under the Post-9/11 Veterans  Educational Assistance Act of 2008 (Post-9/11 GI Bill) to over 2 million  veterans since the program began in 2009, according to VA. This  program provides funding that helps cover eligible veterans’ tuition and  fees (that VA pays directly to schools), as well as monthly housing  benefits and book stipends (that VA pays directly to veterans). These  benefits enable veterans to pursue a higher education and develop skills  to help them re-enter the workforce. However, recent news reports about  school closures have raised questions about the effect of these closures  on student veterans’ education benefits.

My remarks today address three objectives: (1) the distribution of Post- 9/11 GI Bill tuition and fee payments among schools, (2) the outcomes of  students at schools that receive the most Post-9/11 GI Bill tuition and fee  payments, and (3) how school closures can affect student veterans. To  answer objective one, we analyzed school-level data from VA on Post- 9/11 GI Bill beneficiaries, tuition and fee payments, and school  characteristics for fiscal year 2017, the most recent data available. For  our second objective, we analyzed school-level 4-year program  graduation rates, retention rates, and school characteristics from the  Department of Education’s (Education) Integrated Postsecondary  Education Data System (IPEDS) for school year 2017-2018, the most  recent data available. In addition, to estimate how many student  veterans receive federal student aid we reviewed data from Education’s  National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS) for school year  2015-16, the most recent data available. We assessed the reliability of  the VA and Education data by performing electronic tests on specific data  elements used in our analyses and by reviewing documentation about the  specific data systems and our prior work that assessed the reliability of  similar data. As a result of this assessment, we concluded that the VA  and Education data were sufficiently reliable for our reporting purposes.  My testimony related to objective three is based on our prior reports on  this topic issued between 2013 and 2017 and cited throughout this  statement. We used multiple methodologies to develop the findings,  conclusions, and recommendations for these reports. A more detailed  discussion of the objectives, scope, and methodologies, including our  assessment of data reliability, is available in each report.

We provided a copy of the applicable new information that we are  reporting in this testimony to VA and Education for comment. VA and  Education provided technical comments, which we addressed as  appropriate.

The work upon which this statement is based was conducted in  accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.  Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain  sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our  findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that  the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and  conclusions based on our audit objectives.

VA has been providing veterans educational assistance benefits since  1944. We previously reported that these benefits have been put in place  over time to compensate for compulsory service, encourage voluntary  service, avoid unemployment, provide equitable benefits to all who  served, and promote military retention. The Post-9/11 GI Bill, which took  effect on August 1, 2009, is now VA’s largest educational program. This  program generally provides benefits to veterans who served on active  duty for at least 90 days beginning on or after September 11, 2001. Full  benefits are generally available to those who served on active duty for 36  months, for which VA will pay the net cost for in-state tuition and fees at  public schools and up to an annual maximum amount at nonprofit and for- profit schools ($24,477 in academic year 2019-2020). VA pays schools  directly for tuition and fees and sends additional payments for housing  and books directly to veterans who are eligible for these payments. To  receive education benefits through the Post-9/11 GI Bill, students submit  applications to VA, schools certify enrollments, and VA processes claims  and payments.

For help covering the costs of their postsecondary education, veterans  may also be eligible for grants and loans available from federal student  aid programs administered by Education, such as Pell Grants and Direct  Loans. According to Education data, an estimated 32 percent of student  veterans had received Pell Grants and 28 percent had taken out Direct  Loans, during school year 2015-16. VA education payments, such as  Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits, are not considered when calculating eligibility  for federal student aid and do not affect the amount of aid a veteran can  receive from Education. Student veterans may also be eligible for state  and institutional aid (scholarships from state governments or schools, for  example).

Student Veterans Attend a Wide Range of Schools, but a Small Number of Schools Receive a Large Share of Post- 9/11 GI Bill Payments

Nearly 700,000 student veterans received Post-9/11 GI Bill tuition and fee  benefits to attend almost 6,000 schools in fiscal year 2017. VA paid  about 40 percent of the Post-9/11 GI Bill tuition and fee payments to  public schools, 30 percent to nonprofits, and 30 percent to for-profits (see  fig. 1).

Most student veterans used Post-9/11 GI Bill tuition and fee payments to  attend schools that provided 4-year undergraduate programs (see fig. 2).  Veterans may also use Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits for training opportunities  at schools that do not offer college degrees, including training in areas  such as driving, emergency medical training, and barber or beautician  skills. These programs received about $360 million Post-9/11 GI bill  tuition and fee payments in fiscal year 2017.

A relatively small number of schools received a large share of Post-9/11  GI Bill tuition and fee payments. In fiscal year 2017, the 50 schools that  received the highest total amount of Post-9/11 GI Bill tuition and fee  payments accounted for over 30 percent of all such benefits, collectively  receiving $1.4 billion for over 190,000 beneficiaries. These 50 schools  consisted of 14 public, 16 nonprofit, and 20 for-profit schools (see fig. 3).  In fiscal year 2017, the 50 schools received between $11 million and  $191 million each in tuition and fee payments and enrolled between  around 350 and 28,000 Post-9/11 GI Bill beneficiaries. In contrast, among  all schools receiving Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits in fiscal year 2017, the  majority of them enrolled fewer than 15 veterans.

Student Outcomes Varied Among Schools That Received a Large Share of Post-9/11 GI Bill Payments

Student outcomes at the 50 schools that received the most Post-9/11 GI  Bill tuition and fee payments were, on average, generally comparable to  the national average, but varied more widely across sectors. Since  available data on student veteran outcomes is currently limited, we  analyzed common outcome measures for the broader student populations  at each school:

4-year program graduation rates: the percent of first-time full-time  students who completed a 4-year program within 6 years.

Full- and part-time retention rates: the percent of first-time students  who enrolled in one fall and either successfully completed their  program or re-enrolled in the next fall.

When examined as a whole, the average student outcomes for the 50  schools that received the most Post-9/11 GI Bill tuition and fee payments  were generally comparable to the national average. For example, the  average 4-year program graduation rate at the top 50 schools was 61— the same as the national average. For one of the outcome measures— full-time retention rate—the average was higher for the top 50 schools (83  percent) than the national average (75 percent).

Within the 50 schools that received the most Post-9/11 GI Bill tuition and  fee payments, student outcomes varied across schools in different  sectors (see fig. 4). For-profit schools had lower 4-year program  graduation and retention rates compared to public and nonprofit schools  among these 50 schools, although there was wide variation among  schools in each sector.

School Closures Affect Thousands of Student Veterans

Although a relatively small number of schools close each year, these  closures can affect thousands of student veterans. In 2017 we reported  that about 95 schools closed in school year 2015-16, according to  Education data, which was higher than in previous years, primarily due to  a rise in for-profit school closures (see fig. 5).

Schools can close in different manners and for a variety of reasons,  including declining enrollments, financial problems, loss of accreditation,  and legal actions. When a school ceases operations in an orderly process  over several months it gives students time to complete the current school  term and make arrangements to transfer and continue their education at  another school. The effect of school closures is often worse when the  closures occur abruptly with little or no advance warning, because these  schools generally do not have time to establish transfer arrangements  that allow students to easily continue their education at another school.

Abrupt closures of large schools, although infrequent, can affect  thousands of student veterans and result in large financial losses for the  federal government and taxpayers. For example, Corinthian Colleges  Inc. (Corinthian) enrolled more than 72,000 students before its closure in  April 2015. The following year, ITT Educational Services Inc. (ITT),  another large for-profit provider of higher education, closed all of its 136  campuses in September 2016, affecting more than 35,000 students. More  than 7,000 Post-9/11 GI Bill students were pursuing educational  programs at schools operated by ITT and Corinthian at the time of their  closures, according to VA. More recently, closures at Education  Corporation of America in 2018 and Dream Center Education Holdings in  2019, which operated schools under multiple brands, including Argosy  University and several campuses of The Art Institutes, affected tens of  thousands of students, including thousands of Post-9/11 GI Bill recipients.

Student veterans attending a school that closes may be eligible to have  some or all of their Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits restored. As a result of the  Harry W. Colmery Veterans Educational Assistance Act of 2017, VA  restores GI Bill entitlements to eligible beneficiaries affected by recent  and future school closures. Student veterans may also be entitled to a  discharge on eligible federal student loans they may have received from  Education or to have their Pell Grant eligibility restored if they are unable  to complete a program because their school closed.

Despite these options for having benefits restored and loans discharged,  school closures can still create hardships for veterans. As we have  previously reported, college students in general can face challenges  transferring credits and continuing their education at a new school under  any circumstances. Students who transferred lost, on average, an  estimated 43 percent of their credits, and credit loss varied depending on  the transfer path, based on data from 2004 to 2009. For example,  students who transferred between public schools—the majority of transfer  students—lost an estimated 37 percent of their credits. In comparison,  students who transferred from for-profit schools to public schools—which  happens less frequently—lost an estimated 94 percent of their credits.  Even if a student’s credits transfer, they may not apply toward fulfilling  degree requirements for their intended major. In these cases, a student  will likely have to take additional courses at their new school, which could  potentially delay graduation and result in additional costs to pay for  repeated courses. Further, some student veterans with credits that do not  transfer may exhaust their Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits before completing  their degree.

School closures can also exacerbate other challenges veterans may face  pursuing their education. As we have previously reported, many student  veterans already cope with challenges transitioning from the military to an  academic environment. For example, they can face challenges  navigating the academic bureaucracy, whether in attempting to receive  transfer credit for previous college courses or in determining what other  sources of financial aid may be available to them. Many student veterans  are also trying to balance school with family and work obligations or  dealing with the effects of combat-related physical and psychological  injuries. When a school closes, the burden of finding and enrolling in a  new school may be especially difficult for these veterans.

Closures can also pose a financial risk for the government and taxpayers  to the extent that Post-9/11 GI benefits are restored and federal student  loans are discharged. For example, in 2017 the Congressional Budget  Office estimated that restoring Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits and other VA  education benefits to student veterans who attend schools that closed will  increase direct spending by $320 million over the 10 year period from  2018 to 2027. School closures can also result in hundreds of millions of  dollars in financial losses for the federal government and taxpayers due to  discharged federal student loans.

In conclusion, the Post-9/11 GI Bill has provided valuable education  benefits to millions of veterans who attend a wide range of schools.  However, when schools abruptly shut their doors, it can leave student  veterans—who already face unique challenges in an academic  environment—without a clear path to continuing their education and can  force taxpayers to cover the cost of restoring their benefits and  discharged student loans. Student veterans who continue their education  at another school may also find that many of the credits they earned will  not ultimately help them after they transfer, delaying their degrees and  resulting in additional costs. As the number of school closures has  increased in recent years, the risks and challenges associated with such  closures are particularly salient for student veterans, their families, and  the federal government.

Chairman Levin, Ranking Member Bilirakis, and Members of the  Subcommittee, this completes my prepared statement. I would be  pleased to respond to any questions that you may have at this time.

If you or your staff have any questions about this testimony, please  contact Melissa Emrey-Arras, Director, Education, Workforce, and  Income Security Issues at (617) 788-0534 or emreyarrasm@gao.gov.  Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public  Affairs may be found on the last page of this statement. GAO staff who  made key contributions to this testimony include Will Colvin (Assistant  Director), Brian Schwartz (Analyst-in-Charge), and Jeffrey G. Miller. In  addition, key support was provided by James Bennett, Deborah Bland,  Benjamin DeYoung, Alex Galuten, Theresa Lo, John Mingus, Corinna  Nicolaou, and Michelle St. Pierre.

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the  United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety  without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain  copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be  necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.

The Post-9/11 GI Bill pays tuition, housing, and other costs for veterans pursuing higher education. It has provided $94 billion in benefits to veterans since 2009.

This testimony examines which schools are receiving the most Post-9/11 GI Bill tuition payments, how their students are faring, and how school closures affect veterans.

50 schools received over 30% of all tuition payments—$1.4 billion—and enrolled over 190,000 veterans

Within those 50, graduation rates varied from 73% at public schools to 22% at for-profits

Closures are rare but can create hardships for thousands of veterans and significant costs for taxpayers