Divert or donate? Early experiences with California’s attempt to reduce organic waste and food insecurity

Food waste poses significant environmental and societal challenges, with an estimated 30% of global food production lost or wasted along the supply chain, threatening both environmental sustainability and food security. The United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goal 12.3 aims to halve global food waste by 2030, linking waste reduction to hunger alleviation. California sought to address both priorities simultaneously through Senate Bill (SB) 1383, a novel organic waste law. This article contributes to the literature on food loss and waste (FLW) mitigation by examining tensions between SB 1383’s dual goals: diverting organic waste from landfills and redistributing surplus food to communities in need. While SB 1383 is a progressive policy, its implementation has revealed conflicts between these objectives. We assess the impact of SB 1383 on stakeholder compliance with its food waste reduction and recovery requirements. Specifically, we examine the two key objectives of this regulation: (1) mitigating climate change by diverting organic waste from landfills, and (2) addressing food insecurity by redistributing recovered food to communities in need. We interviewed 37 stakeholders, including food recovery organizations, jurisdiction representatives, and edible food generators involved in implementation. Additionally, we analyzed the distribution of Local Assistance Grant funds across California counties and between the policy’s dual goals. Our findings indicate a stronger focus on waste diversion than food recovery, and an uneven distribution of funding, with rural areas facing greater challenges in adapting to SB 1383’s requirements. We conclude by highlighting tensions in FLW policy design that seeks to advance multiple, sometimes competing, goals. • SB 1383 prioritizes waste diversion over food recovery, mirroring trends in U.S. state policies. • Rural areas face greater challenges in implementing SB 1383’s food waste mandates. • Counties with higher food insecurity received less funding for food recovery initiatives. • Clearer regulatory priorities and equity-focused implementation are needed for SB 1383’s success. • Economic factors may be shifting priorities toward waste diversion over food recovery.