A recent study in the journal Science finds that an organic waste ban in Massachusetts has reduced overall waste by 13 percent from 2014 to 2018.
Bans on organic waste, or food waste, offer a tool to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. “In requiring food scraps to go somewhere other than landfills, waste bans help to avoid the methane that typically comes from food rotting in landfills,” Dana Gunders, President of ReFED, tells Food Tank. The study reports that compared with landfilling food, composting generates 38 percent to 84 percent less methane.
But of the five states with organic waste bans analyzed, only Massachusetts shows a statistically significant reduction in waste. Key factors for success may include clarity of the law, investment in composting infrastructure, and policy enforcement.
“It was surprising to find that several of these laws do not seem to be working. But if we look at it a little bit more optimistically, it’s also surprising how well one of them worked,” Fiorentia Anglou, PhD Candidate at the University of Texas and co-author of the study, tells Food Tank.
Anglou and her research team estimate that if a state’s ban is working, they can expect to see between a 10 to 15 percent reduction in landfilled waste. Massachusetts was exactly on target with an estimated waste reduction of 13.2 percent. In California, Connecticut, Rhode Island, and Vermont however, researchers find no significant waste reduction.
According to Anglou, “[Massachusetts has] a very simple law that people can understand, it doesn’t change often, it doesn’t have any exemptions.” This clarity may be helping the policy to have its intended effect.
Massachusetts first implemented an organic waste ban in 2014. The original regulation banned large businesses from disposing of organic waste in the landfill. The ban initially applied to companies that generated over 1 ton of organic material weekly. A 2022 revision lowered that threshold to a half ton weekly.
Anglou believes that careful implementation is crucial in supporting policy success. Gunders agrees, saying policymakers in other states can learn from Massachusetts’ phased implementation. “By starting with large generators or with longer lead times, [bans] can provide the incentive for infrastructure to develop, while also making sure there’s a place for the food scraps to go once the law is enforced,” she says.
Anglou calls infrastructure a “no-brainer.” She continues, “If you want businesses to comply, you cannot have composting that is ten times as expensive as landfilling. You don’t want to make the businesses in your state suffer. You want to help the environment, help the businesses, and to do that I think you need to invest in infrastructure,” she tells Food Tank.
Massachusetts has the densest composting infrastructure network of all analyzed states, according to the study.
Gunders believes that organic waste bans can provide other states with motivation to invest in more composting facilities. “They establish demand for the development of organics recycling infrastructure, which requires a lot of capital investment and does not always have a business model if waste bans aren’t in place,” she explains.
While a commercial waste ban only targets large businesses and institutions, the resulting expansion in waste disposal infrastructure can benefit smaller organizations too. Guidelines from the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP)Â encourage all businesses, regardless of size, to consider diverting organic waste to potentially save money.
Gunders says that waste bans can have a “cascading effect” when it comes to food waste policy. “Commercial food waste bans can be a great initial first step to incentivize and build out organics recycling infrastructure, followed by a residential ban once systems are up and running,” she tells Food Tank.
Food waste bans can also drive economic growth, Gunders says. “Massachusetts found that in two years, the commercial food waste ban created more than 900 new jobs, and US$175 million in economic activity. That, on its own, might interest other policymakers to follow suit,” she tells Food Tank. While some states may not have initially seen the waste reductions policymakers anticipated, Gunders emphasizes the long run importance of this policy mechanism. “More recent reporting from California and  Vermont suggest the bans are indeed working,” she explains.
“These are very very powerful policies,” says Anglou. “I think that other states who want to implement new bans should probably look at the example of Massachusetts and adopt a law that is easy to understand, and seriously invest in enforcement and infrastructure.”
Articles like the one you just read are made possible through the generosity of Food Tank members. Can we please count on you to be part of our growing movement? Become a member today by clicking here.
