The Start Here Toolkit

Unclear or restrictive food safety laws often deter donations, as donors may fear penalties or lack guidance on safe handling. This leads to wholesome food being discarded.

Clear and comprehensive food safety policies specifically tailored to donated food are critical to ensure donors understand how to legally donate and beneficiaries are protected.

• Incorporate food donation into food safety legislation.
• Explicitly permit the donation of unsaleable food with minor labeling flaws or permitting issues.
• Issue government guidance and public education initiatives.

United Kingdom (UK): The UK updated its food safety law to establish a detailed legal framework relevant to food donation.

India: The Food Safety and Standards Authority of India enacted the Food Safety and Standards Regulations, which outlines clear food safety protocols for donations and expressly permits food donation.

A primary concern deterring businesses from donating surplus food is the fear of liability should a recipient fall ill after consuming donated items even if the food is safe and was handled in accordance with safety requirements.

This liability risk leads many potential donors to discard safe, nourishing food rather than redistribute it to people facing hunger. Liability protection laws are therefore crucial as they shield food donors and food recovery organizations from liability when donations are made in good faith and without negligence or intentional misconduct.

• Provide comprehensive liability protection for food donors and recovery organizations.
• Designate an agency to raise awareness and provide guidance.
• Extend liability protection to intermediaries charging a nominal fee.
• Allow liability protection for direct donations to individuals.
• Clarify food safety requirements relevant to liability protection.

Argentina: The Food Donation Law (Régimen Especial para la Donación de Alimentos) in Argentina provides robust liability protection to food donors and recovery organizations.

United States: The Bill Emerson Good Samaritan Food Donation Act provides comprehensive liability protection to food donors and nonprofit organizations, ensuring they are not held responsible for any issues arising from donated food if they act in good faith.

Confusion over date labeling is a leading contributor to food loss and waste worldwide. Misinterpretation of date labels, such as “sell by,” “best before,” or “use by,” often results in safe, nutritious food being discarded unnecessarily by consumers and potential food donors. Manufacturers generally use date labels to indicate what they consider the time for peak food quality of their product, as opposed to the safety of the food.

The Codex Alimentarius, a set of international food standards developed by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) and the World Health Organization (WHO), recommends a dual labeling scheme that distinguishes between dates used to indicate safety and those used to indicate peak quality. Specifically, it recommends using only one label, either a “use by date” or “expiration date” to indicate safety or a “best before date” or “best quality before date” to indicate quality.

• Standardize to a dual date labeling scheme.
• Expressly permit the sale and donation of food past quality-based date labels.
• Educate consumers and businesses.

United Kingdom: The UK’s date labeling scheme follows the EU’s dual labeling approach, specifying “use by” for safety-related dates on highly perishable items and “best before” for quality-based indicators on other foods. In addition, extensive guidance and public education initiatives in the UK help clarify these distinctions and have helped reduce food waste significantly.

Israel: In Israel, the dual date labeling system under the Law for the Protection of Public Health (Food) clearly distinguishes between safety-related and quality-related dates on food products, helping clarify which foods remain safe to consume past certain dates.47 Israel’s system uses two terms: “use by”, a safety-based date applied to perishable items that could pose health risks if consumed past this date and “best before”, an indicator of highest quality.

Tax policies are powerful tools that can either encourage or discourage food donation, shaping how surplus food is managed across the supply chain. By strategically implementing tax benefits or reducing financial barriers, governments can significantly impact the volume of food recovered and redistributed to people facing hunger.

In countries with robust tax incentives, food donation is a cost-effective alternative to discarding surplus food. Incentives often include tax deductions, credits, or exemptions that reduce the financial burden on businesses, making donation a financially attractive option.

Conversely, the absence of adequate tax incentives or the imposition of tax burdens can significantly hinder food donation efforts. In many regions, the lack of clear tax benefits or the presence of taxes such as value-added tax (VAT) on donated goods create financial disincentives that discourage businesses from donating surplus food.

• Include charitable tax credits or deductions for in-kind food donations.
  Provide a VAT exemption or zero rating for food donations.
• Expand tax incentives to include associated costs of donation.
• Offer enhanced benefits for healthier food donations.

Colombia: In 2024 Colombia enacted Ley 2380 de 2024, a law designed to promote food donation and contribute to food security as part of the country’s “Zero Hunger” objective. This law allows donors to claim a tax credit of up to 37% (raised from the previous 25%) of the value of donated food items and hygiene products. This discount can also include transportation and related costs incurred in delivering the donated items to food banks.

United States: US taxpayers are eligible to claim both a general tax deduction of the basis value of the foods or other items for all in-kind charitable contributions (capped at 10% of income for most corporate donors) or an “enhanced tax deduction” unique to food donations (capped at 15% of income for most corporate donors).

Food waste deterrence is a universe of laws or policies that aims to reduce food waste and increase food recovery by making food waste financially burdensome for food waste generators (e.g., businesses, institutions, households, and other entities that create food waste). These laws include various policy designs, such as restricting food waste sent to landfills, requiring food donation or diversion, and financially penalizing those entities that waste food. These policies are increasingly recognized as essential tools in combating FLW globally.

• Adopt a national food waste deterrence law or policy.
• Experiment with financial penalties for wasteful practices.
• Provide support for state and local governments to enact food waste deterrence polices where a national law is not possible.

Ecuador: Ecuador’s Law to Prevent and Reduce Food Loss and Waste enforces a strict hierarchy for food disposal, penalizing those that discard food fit for consumption without exploring other uses. This law applies to the entire supply chain, from producers to retailers, mandating that food waste is minimized through prevention, donation, or recycling.

Peru: Peru’s Food Donation Law mandates the donation of commercially unviable but safe food, focusing on supermarkets and warehouses. At the time of the law’s adoption, it promoted but did not require the donation of food that had lost commercial value but was still safe and nutritious to qualifying institutions. However, as the law stipulates, the voluntary suggestion became a donation requirement starting the third year after enactment. This requirement applies only to supermarkets and food storage facilities or warehouses; other supply chain actors are still only encouraged to donate.

National strategies play a critical role in addressing FLW by establishing structured frameworks that coordinate government, industry, and public efforts toward comprehensive food waste reduction and surplus redistribution. While many countries have set targets under the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goal 12.3 to halve per capita FLW by 2030,87 only a select number have implemented comprehensive national strategies specifically targeting FLW. These strategies are essential for harmonizing food waste and donation policies, often integrating goals for waste reduction with hunger alleviation and climate change mitigation initiatives.

• Set a national goal for FLW reduction and redistribution.
• Designate a lead ministry or establish an interagency task force
• Develop a comprehensive FLW strategy.
• Educate individuals, industries, and institutions through a public education campaign.
• Involve state and local governments in the overall strategy.

Australia: Australia’s National Food Waste Strategy, developed with substantial stakeholder engagement and feasibility analysis, exemplifies a robust, whole-of-government approach. The strategy sets clear reduction goals supported by feasibility studies identifying the most cost-effective interventions. Australia’s public awareness initiatives, roadmap, stakeholder consultations, and voluntary agreements serve as a benchmark for FLW policy development globally.

Argentina: Argentina’s National Plan for the Reduction of Food Loss and Waste targets FLW across the food value chain. This plan includes the development of better technology, infrastructure for storage and transportation, and market mechanisms for timely distribution. Multistakeholder engagement has been critical in Argentina, with involvement from multiple sectors including agribusiness, government agencies, and retail.

Government grants and other incentives can play a critical role in encouraging food donation and building infrastructure to reduce FLW. While food donation is a cost-effective solution to both hunger and FLW, it often requires infrastructure, labor, and transportation, which can be financially burdensome. Many countries lack adequate funding mechanisms to support these efforts, leaving food recovery organizations and donors without the means to scale their impact. Grants can bridge this gap, offering financial and logistical support to donors, food banks, and recovery organizations. Incentives can also promote innovation in food recovery, enhance public awareness, and incentivize businesses to donate rather than discard surplus food.

• Establish grant funds for food recovery organizations.
• Promote nontax incentives in addition to tax incentives, or where tax incentives are insufficient or unavailable.
• Leverage public-private partnerships.
• Support education and outreach.

United States: The United States offers several grant programs to support food recovery, including the Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP), which allocates funding for infrastructure and food purchases. The 2018 Farm Bill allocates $4 million annually from TEFAP to states to operate Farm to Food Bank projects. These projects increase the amount of fresh produce in food banks by supporting payments made to farmers for the labor involved in harvesting and preparing their surplus food for donation. States such as Massachusetts have implemented initiatives like the Massachusetts Emergency Food Assistance Program (MEFAP), which provides $30 million annually to purchase and distribute food through regional food banks.

Canada: Canada’s Local Food Infrastructure Fund is a multiyear program offering CAD $62.9 million in grants. It supports food recovery organizations in acquiring infrastructure, such as cold storage and transport equipment, and promotes community-based food systems to reduce food insecurity sustainably.

Food waste is a major contributor to global greenhouse gas emissions, yet most countries lack consistent policies to measure or report its environmental impacts. Although FLW contributes significantly to climate change, many businesses and governments do not track it or account for its climate impacts—and few integrate food donation into climate mitigation strategies.

Emissions, environmental, and food waste reporting policies can help address this gap. Three primary types of reporting frameworks can be used to assess and manage FLW: (1) environmental, social, and governance (ESG) reporting, which requires companies to disclose their sustainability and social impact performance; (2) Scope 3 emissions reporting, which covers indirect supply chain emissions including those from wasted food; and (3) FLW-specific reporting, which focuses directly on measuring and disclosing food loss and waste by weight or other metrics.

Such types of reporting not only illuminate the amount and cause of waste streams but also create opportunities to reduce FLW and increase food recovery. While such reporting is often done voluntary by businesses or as part of voluntary reporting agreement, it can also be required or supported through policy.

1. Require companies to report on emissions or food waste.
2. Incentivize reporting even when not mandated.
3. Adopt or endorse a reporting standard.
4. Support data sharing and technical assistance.

Mexico: Mexico’s 2012 General Law on Climate Change established a national emissions reporting platform requiring companies to calculate and report greenhouse gas emissions, including methane. Since 2017, verification by a third party has been mandatory every three years. While originally focused on the energy sector, the law creates an opportunity for companies to improve emissions performance by reducing methane from food waste, including through food donation.

European Union: The EU’s Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD), adopted in 2022, requires large companies and listed SMEs to disclose standardized sustainability information, including environmental impacts and resource use. The accompanying European Sustainability Reporting Standards (ESRS) explicitly integrate circular economy and waste management, which cover food waste. The EU’s 2018 revision to the Waste Framework Directive requires Member States to measure and report food waste across the entire supply chain—from production to households—using a common methodology adopted in 2019.