Zero Food Waste Act
- Sponsor
- Sen. Booker, Cory A. [D-NJ]
- Committees
- Environment and Public Works Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Dec 11, 2025
Bottom line
The Zero Food Waste Act creates a new EPA grant program, authorized for $6.5 billion over ten years, to significantly reduce food waste across the nation, with a focus on environmental justice communities.
What it actually does
This bill establishes a competitive grant program within the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to fund initiatives aimed at reducing food waste by 50 percent by 2035, relative to 2015 levels. The program offers grants for conducting food waste studies, collecting data, and implementing various reduction activities such as prevention, rescue, upcycling, and recycling. It prioritizes funding for projects in diverse locations and in communities disproportionately affected by adverse environmental effects.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that this bill addresses a critical environmental and economic issue by reducing landfill waste, mitigating greenhouse gas emissions, and combating food insecurity. They highlight the comprehensive approach, which includes prevention and rescue, and the strategic focus on supporting communities disproportionately affected by environmental hazards. The bill's clear target of a 50% reduction by 2035 provides a robust framework for measurable progress and aligns with national sustainability goals.
Opponents contend
Opponents might contend that this federal program could duplicate existing efforts by state, local, and private entities, potentially leading to inefficient use of taxpayer funds. Concerns could be raised regarding the administrative burden on the EPA to manage a broad grant program with diverse requirements, and the potential for federal overreach into local waste management practices. Some critics may also question the overall effectiveness of a grant-based approach compared to market-driven solutions or less prescriptive federal guidance.
The bill is concise and clearly structured, allowing an informed reader to understand its core provisions and implications within a short timeframe.
Section 1
Short Title
This section formally names the legislation the 'Zero Food Waste Act.' This provides a concise and recognizable title for public reference and legislative tracking, clearly indicating the bill's primary focus.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that a clear and concise short title helps in public communication and legislative identification, making the bill's purpose immediately recognizable.
Critics contend
No specific opposition is typically raised against short titles, as they are standard legislative practice.
Tradeoffs
None.
Section 2(a)
Key Definitions for Food Waste Reduction
This section defines critical terms such as 'Administrator' (EPA), 'eligible entity' (states, local/territorial/Tribal governments, nonprofits), 'food waste,' 'food waste reduction activity' (prevention, rescue, upcycling, recycling), 'prevent,' 'rescue,' 'recycle,' 'source separated organics,' and 'upcycle.' These definitions establish the precise scope and intent of the grant program and the activities it aims to support.
Section 2(b)(1)-(2)
Establishment of EPA Food Waste Reduction Grant Program and Purpose
This provision mandates the EPA Administrator to establish a competitive grant program. The explicit purpose of this program is to achieve a 50 percent reduction in the quantity of food waste by 2035, measured against 2015 levels, setting a clear, measurable national goal for the initiative.
Section 2(b)(3)(A)-(C)
Categories of Food Waste Reduction Grants
The bill outlines three categories for grants: (A) studies on food waste generation and management planning (excluding nonprofits), (B) data collection and reporting on food waste (excluding nonprofits), and (C) direct food waste reduction projects. Category C projects can include implementing differential pricing on waste disposal, providing technical assistance, imposing disposal restrictions, implementing reduction requirements, or stimulating demand for recycling end-markets.
Section 2(c)(3)
Grant Prioritization for Impact and Need
This provision directs the Administrator to prioritize grants for diverse locations and uses. Specifically, it prioritizes entities (excluding nonprofits) that either already implement or demonstrate a need for additional investment in infrastructure for food waste reduction programs. It also prioritizes entities that will use grants in communities of color, low-income communities, or Tribal communities that have been disproportionately affected by adverse human health or environmental effects.
Section 2(c)(4)
Specific Requirements for Anaerobic Digestion Projects
For grants supporting anaerobic digestion projects, the Administrator must require applicants to submit a plan for end-product recycling as a soil amendment, ensuring it does not create an environmental hazard. Additionally, these projects are limited to using not more than 20% animal waste and must use only source separated organics for the remaining feedstock.
Section 2(e)
Funding Authorization for the Grant Program
This section authorizes the appropriation of $650,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2026 through 2035 to carry out the grant program. These funds are authorized to remain available until expended, providing substantial and sustained financial backing for the initiative over a decade.
The definition of 'source separated organics' explicitly includes materials certified to meet ASTM standard D6400 or D6868, but crucially 'does not include mixed solid waste.'
Section 2(a)(9)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice for technical specifications, ensuring clarity for implementers rather than being evasive. It sets a technical standard for quality.
Case for: Proponents argue this ensures that recycling efforts (like composting or anaerobic digestion) funded by the grants use clean, uncontaminated organic streams, leading to higher quality end-products and preventing the introduction of pollutants into soil amendments.
Case against: Some might argue that excluding mixed solid waste could limit the scope of eligible projects, particularly in areas where source separation infrastructure is nascent or challenging to implement, potentially hindering broader waste diversion efforts.
Estimated impact: Ensures that a significant portion of grant-funded recycling activities will adhere to high quality standards for organic waste, impacting the environmental integrity of end-products.
Nonprofit organizations applying for a grant must include a letter of support from a relevant local, territorial, Tribal, or State government, or from another nonprofit with a demonstrated history in the geographic region that would not be involved in the proposed use of the grant.
Section 2(c)(2)
Why it matters:This is a standard mechanism for ensuring local buy-in and accountability for grant recipients, rather than an attempt to hide a provision.
Case for: Supporters would argue this ensures that nonprofit-led projects have community or governmental backing, increasing their likelihood of success and integration into local waste management strategies, or demonstrating established credibility.
Case against: Critics might argue that this requirement could create an unnecessary barrier for smaller, grassroots nonprofit organizations that may struggle to secure formal letters of support, potentially limiting their access to funding.
Estimated impact: Affects the eligibility and application process for all nonprofit organizations seeking grants, potentially streamlining the review process for the EPA by ensuring a level of external validation.