The Food Donation and Waste Reduction Act

Emily Letch-Avenell, Curtin University

Executive Summary

An estimated 7.3 million tonnes of food waste is produced by Australian supermarkets each year, costing Australia $36.6 billion per annum. Supermarkets are major contributors to food waste and face challenges in waste reduction, as it is often more feasible to throw away goods rather than donating or repurposing them. To combat this, this policy recommends a federal requirement for all edible food waste from supermarkets be donated to local Australian charities.

Despite challenges like initial financial investment and enforcing the consistent separation of edible and inedible food waste in supermarkets, the policy would directly address the issue of edible food waste, whilst increasing supply to charities and food banks. The Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water (DCCEEW) of Australia would support this with targeted grants and tax incentives for supermarkets, enhancing compliance through strict waste segregation and prohibiting edible food disposal in landfills. This approach aims to significantly reduce waste and aid charities, fostering a sustainable food distribution system.

Implementation requires collaboration among supermarkets, waste management, and transportation firms, supported by government funding. Success metrics include a 30% reduction in edible food waste going to landfill nationally, a 30% increase in donated food and successful compliance enforcement through regular audits and penalties. Creating a federal standard and partnering with stakeholders including not-forprofits and supermarkets would assist in  ensuring a robust solution to Australia's food waste issue.

The implementation of this strategy would be fully supported by DCCEEW's existing $5 million annual budget for food waste programs and the National Food Waste Strategy's $1.3 million allocation over 24 months, ensuring compliance, monitoring, and stakeholder engagement without requiring additional expenditure.

Problem Identification 

Australians discard around 7.6 million tonnes of food each year, averaging 312 kg per person and up to $2,500 per household (National Retail Association, 2022). Food waste in Australia has significant environmental consequences, with food waste alone contributing 3% of the country's annual greenhouse gas emissions (DCCEEW, 2017). Furthermore, the water used to grow this wasted food amounts to 2,600 gigalitres, equivalent to the volume of water in five Sydney Harbours (National Retail Association, 2022), and the land required to grow wasted food covers over 25 million hectares, surpassing the size of Victoria (DCCEEW, 2023).

In contrast, food insecurity remains a critical issue in Australia, affecting millions despite concentrated efforts to mitigate it (Commonwealth Parliament, 2024). Approximately 2 million households in Australia have experienced severe food insecurity within the last 12 months (Foodbank, 2022). Additionally, food insecurity affects millions in Australia, increasing social costs related to healthcare and social services. The wastage of food is intensified by the lack of uniform norms, and lack of knowledge and coordination. 70% of edible food is wasted due to a lack of collaboration with grocery chains, even though programs like Food Rescue and the Food Rescue Sector Action Plan are in place to attempt to reuse a sizable amount of food (Australian Government, 2019).

Currently, supermarkets often discard food because it is less expensive than donating it (The Australian Institute 2023). Australia's tax framework does not provide sufficient incentives for companies to cover the costs associated with donating unsellable but edible food, making landfill a cheaper option (FoodBank, 2023). This approach not only overlooks the environmental costs of landfill, including significant methane emissions and expensive waste management systems, but also the rising financial burden due to government levies that can exceed $100 per tonne (KPMG, 2012). Redirecting food waste through subsidies and better tax incentives could reduce these broader environmental, financial, and social costs, offering long-term benefits.

Context

Options

Policy Recommendation

Risks