{"id":50146,"date":"2025-03-27T12:36:31","date_gmt":"2025-03-27T19:36:31","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.cafoodbanks.org\/?p=50146"},"modified":"2025-07-23T10:24:58","modified_gmt":"2025-07-23T17:24:58","slug":"sb1383-impact","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.cafoodbanks.org\/zh\/blog\/sb1383-impact\/","title":{"rendered":"SB 1383 \u5982\u4f55\u5f71\u54cd\u52a0\u5dde\u98df\u54c1\u94f6\u884c"},"content":{"rendered":"

In 2022, California began implementing its first-in-the-nation Short-Lived Climate Pollution Reduction Strategy<\/a>, otherwise known as Senate Bill (SB) 1383, which aims to keep organic waste out of landfills, where it emits harmful methane gas (a major source of climate pollution). The law now requires that inedible organic waste \u2013 such as food scraps and yard waste \u2013 be recycled or composted, and that surplus, unsold food that is still safe to eat<\/a> be recovered and used to feed people.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>
\n

CalRecycle, the agency that enforces SB 1383, estimates that 2.5 billion meals worth of edible food ends up in landfills each year<\/a>. To help reduce this, large food businesses such as supermarkets and wholesalers are now required under the law to donate their excess edible food to food recovery organizations (FROs), such as food banks. <\/p>\n<\/div><\/div>\n\n\n\n

<\/div>\n\n\n\n

In 2023, over 200,000 tons of unsold food was recovered<\/a> by FROs in California to redistribute to community members, with the intention of helping communities address food security while also fighting climate change.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Yet many California food banks have found themselves faced with challenges of dealing with the extra logistical and administrative tasks required to comply with the law. On behalf of our network, we wanted to learn and document: How have food banks been impacted overall by SB 1383? Has the law helped food banks better feed their communities or advance their missions? What is working well (or not working)?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Last year, we conducted a study among our member food banks, with the goal of answering questions like these. The final report<\/a><\/mark> describes the study\u2019s methodology, findings, and recommendations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In summary, we found that since SB 1383 went into effect:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Most food banks are receiving more donations, and some are getting more nutritious items, but they are also getting more spoiled or unwanted donations<\/strong>.<\/mark><\/h4>\n\n\n\n
<\/div>\n\n\n\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n
<\/div>\n\n\n\n

On the positive side, nearly two-thirds of food banks reported receiving more donations<\/em><\/strong> in recent years compared with before SB 1383 went into effect. Some were receiving more donations of nutritious items, like meat, produce, and dairy<\/em><\/strong> \u2013 which are particularly valuable because they are more costly for food banks to purchase.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

On the other hand, not all of these changes were attributable to SB 1383, as some food banks were already seeing increases in donations before the law went into effect (due to their education efforts or other factors). Also concerning is that half of food banks reported receiving more inedible or spoiled food<\/em><\/strong>, which they must then dispose of themselves, incurring costs. And some food banks reported receiving less<\/u> donated<\/em><\/strong> food overall, as food generators such as retailers have become more conscientious of their donation patterns and taken measures to decrease their own surpluses.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Food banks have taken on significantly more work, without sufficient or sustainable resources.<\/mark><\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n
<\/div>\n\n\n\n

With food generators now required to find recipients for their surplus edible food, food banks reported spending more time establishing contracts to receive donations, educating donors and partner agencies, creating reports, and performing other administrative tasks. Half of food banks reported receiving some funding for food recovery, but not enough to cover their ongoing expenses. For example, two-thirds of food banks had to hire more staff members to support the additional workload, but most (75%) still reported they had inadequate staff or are likely to run out of funding within two years.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/div>\n\n\n\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n
<\/div>\n\n\n\n

Moreover, food banks reported that insufficient infrastructure and staffing were significant barriers<\/em> to maintaining and expanding food recovery work.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/div>\n\n\n