Background Federal Requirements Related to Equal Employment Opportunity and Affirmative Action Private companies are generally prohibited by federal law from discriminating in employment on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, and disability status. Additionally, federal contractors and subcontractors are generally required to take affirmative action to ensure that all applicants and employees are treated without regard to race, sex, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, and gender identity, and to employ or advance in employment qualified individuals with disabilities and qualified covered veterans. EEOC enforces federal antidiscrimination laws, and OFCCP enforces affirmative action and nondiscrimination requirements for federal contractors. EEOC and OFCCP share some enforcement activities and have established a memorandum of understanding (MOU) to minimize any duplication of effort. U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission The EEOC enforces Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, which prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. EEOC also is responsible for enforcing other federal laws that prohibit discrimination in employment based on age and disability, among other characteristics. EEOC investigates charges of employment discrimination from the public, litigates major cases, and conducts outreach to prevent discrimination by educating employers and workers. EEOC also pursues a limited number of cases each year designed to combat systemic discrimination, defined by the agency as patterns or practices where the alleged discrimination presented by a complainant has a broad impact on an industry, profession, company, or geographic location. EEOC can also initiate a systemic investigation under Title VII with the approval of an EEOC commissioner provided the commissioner finds there is a reasonable basis for the investigation. In fiscal year 2018, EEOC resolved about 90,558 charges of discrimination, secured more than $505 million for victims of discrimination, and filed 199 lawsuits. Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs The OFCCP within DOL is responsible for ensuring that about 200,000 federal contractor establishments comply with federal nondiscrimination and affirmative action requirements. Under Executive Order 11246 and other federal laws and regulations, covered federal contractors and subcontractors are prohibited from discriminating in employment on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, or national origin and are required to take affirmative action to help ensure that all applicants and employees are treated without regard to these factors. OFCCP also enforces Section 503, and the affirmative action provisions of VEVRAA, which require covered contractors to take affirmative action to employ and advance in employment qualified individuals with disabilities and covered veterans, respectively. OFCCP uses two approaches to ensure compliance with federal equal employment and affirmative action requirements—enforcement and compliance assistance. OFCCP’s enforcement program primarily involves conducting evaluations of contractors’ compliance with federal requirements and these evaluations represent the preponderance of agency activity. In 2015, OFCCP compliance officers conducted 2,345 compliance evaluations, which represented about 2 percent of federal contractor establishments in its jurisdiction. OFCCP has since significantly decreased the number of compliance evaluations it conducts. In fiscal year 2018, OFCCP completed 812 compliance evaluations, which is 65 percent fewer than in fiscal year 2015. Since fiscal year 2016, OFCCP has adopted a strategy of conducting fewer compliance evaluations and prioritizing larger systemic cases. Since OFCCP can only evaluate a small fraction of federal contractors each year, the agency also carries out compliance assistance efforts, including issuing guidance, conducting outreach concerning nondiscrimination requirements, and providing compliance assistance to contractors. OFCCP’s regulations generally require that covered contractors prepare and maintain an affirmative action program (AAP). Contractors must also comply with certain recordkeeping requirements; for example, under Executive Order 11246, covered contractors are required to maintain records pertaining to hiring, promotion, layoff or termination, rates of pay, and applications, among other records. Under OFCCP’s Executive Order 11246 regulations, an AAP is a management tool that is designed to ensure equal employment opportunity, with an underlying premise that the gender, racial, and ethnic makeup of a contractor’s workforce should be representative of the labor pools from which the contractor recruits and selects. An AAP must also include practical steps to address underrepresentation of women and minorities, such as goals for expanding employment opportunities to these groups in instances in which they are underrepresented. Companies must create an AAP for each business establishment—generally, a physical facility or unit that produces goods or services, such as a factory, office, or store for the federal contractor. Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA) Each year the federal government provides billions of dollars to organizations that provide social services to needy families and individuals. Some of these funds are provided through competitive grants to faith-based organizations (FBO), which may include religious groups, like churches, mosques, synagogues, and temples, or charitable organizations affiliated with religious groups. In some instances, FBOs believe it is necessary to hire only individuals who share their religious beliefs in order to carry out their mission. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 generally prohibits employment discrimination based on religion. However, section 702(a) of the Act exempts FBOs with respect to basing employment decisions on religion, thereby permitting FBOs to intentionally, and exclusively, hire individuals who share their religious beliefs. In light of this exemption, FBOs that receive federal grant funding or that contract with the federal government have also generally been permitted to make employment decisions based on religion. OFCCP is responsible for ensuring that federal contractors comply with federal nondiscrimination requirements and provides compliance assistance to the entities it oversees, including guidance related to this exemption. There are, however, certain federal grant programs that are subject to statutory restrictions that prohibit recipients from using grant funding, in whole or in part, to discriminate or deny employment on the basis of religion, among other factors. In June 2007, the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel issued an opinion in a particular case stating that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA) could be reasonably construed to require an agency to exempt FBOs from statutory requirements that restrict federal grantees from hiring on the basis of religion. Pursuant to that opinion, and the RFRA, certain federal agencies have permitted FBOs that receive funding under a program that is subject to a statutory restriction on religious-based hiring to certify that they are exempt from such restrictions, allowing these FBOs to engage in religious-based hiring, provided that they do not discriminate on other bases. OFCCP and EEOC Could Improve the Effectiveness of their Processes to Ensure Employers Meet Equal Employment Opportunity Requirements OFCCP and EEOC face challenges in conducting oversight efforts to ensure that employers meet applicable federal equal employment opportunity requirements. For example, in our September 2016 report, we found several shortcomings that limited OFCCP’s oversight efforts, including weaknesses in OFCCP’s compliance evaluation selection process, its reliance on voluntary compliance, and the lack of staff training. Also, in our November 2017 report, we found that OFCCP’s planned methodology for identifying equal employment disparities by industry, such as the technology sector, might not accurately identify industries at greatest risk of potential noncompliance with affirmative action and nondiscrimination requirements. Additionally, we reported that while EEOC had identified barriers to recruitment and hiring in the technology sector as a strategic priority, it had not consistently captured information identifying specific industries when conducting investigations. EEOC’s inability to capture this information using standard industry codes impeded its ability to conduct related analysis that could be used to more effectively focus its limited enforcement resources and outreach activities. Weaknesses in the Compliance Evaluation Process Limited OFCCP’s Ability to Ensure Federal Contractors’ Nondiscrimination Compliance In September 2016, we reported that about 22 percent of OFCCP’s compliance evaluations of supply and service contractors found violations of some type and about 2 percent had discrimination findings, since 2010 (see figure 1). When OFCCP found violations during compliance evaluations, it often resolved those violations with conciliation agreements that outlined remedial action that contractors agreed to take. As a result of our work, we made six recommendations (see table 1). The agency has taken action to fully implement three of our recommendations: (1) to address the risk geographic imbalances in compliance evaluation assignments; (2) to review outreach and compliance assistance efforts and identify options for improving information provided to federal contractors; and (3) assess existing contractor guidance for clarity. However, the agency has not taken action to fully implement our other three recommendations that focus on improving enforcement and compliance. With regard to the recommendations that have not been fully implemented, OFCCP has taken action to date as described below. Focus compliance evaluations on greatest violation risk. We found the process OFCCP used to select contractors for compliance evaluations could not ensure that contractors with the highest risk of noncompliance were being selected. OFCCP’s selection process was nonrandom and did not produce a generalizable sample of contractors for evaluation. As a result, OFCCP was unable to draw conclusions about noncompliance risk in the overall federal contractor population. While the selection process included consideration of a number of neutrally applied factors, such as alphabetical order, employee count at the establishment, contract value, or contract expiration date, OFCCP was not able to identify which of these factors, or any factors, are associated with risk of noncompliance. Thus, OFCCP was unable to quantify the extent to which federal contractors in its jurisdiction are noncompliant, and did not have reasonable assurance that it was focusing its efforts on those contractors at greatest risk of not following equal employment opportunity or affirmative action requirements. Because OFCCP only conducts evaluations about 2 percent of federal contractor establishments in its jurisdiction, without an effective risk-based contractor selection process, OFCCP may be missing opportunities to evaluate whether there is a significant segment of contractors who may be more likely to violate nondiscrimination and affirmative action requirements, leaving workers potentially vulnerable. OFCCP has taken steps to improve its contractor selection process, but has not fully implemented either this 2016 recommendation or a related recommendation we made in 2017 that it assess the quality of its proposed methods to incorporate consideration of disparities by industry before selecting contractors for compliance evaluation. Beginning in fiscal year 2020, contractors will be able to apply to the Voluntary Enterprise- wide Review Program (VERP), which aims to remove top-performing contractor participants from the pool of contractors scheduled for compliance evaluations. OFCCP also recently implemented a new scheduling list (the list of contractor establishments selected for evaluation) methodology based on research on closed cases from the previous five years (2014-2018). Thirty-three percent of the new scheduling list was comprised entirely of contractor establishments from the three industries with the highest rates of violation based on this sample of closed cases. However, the scheduling lists of the previous 5 years included nonrandom selections of contractor establishments that included a number of neutrally applied factors. If OFCCP’s goal is to prioritize contractors at highest risk of noncompliance, this new scheduling methodology may not achieve this, because contractors selected will be weighted towards prior neutrally applied selection factors, such as employee count, in addition to violation risk. Further, while VERP may remove some compliant contractors from the scheduling list pool, without overwhelming volunteer participation, it will do little to help identify those most likely to violate. Consequently, it remains unclear whether contractors with the highest risk of not following equal employment opportunity and affirmative action requirements will be selected for compliance reviews. Monitor affirmative action programs. In 2016 OFCCP relied significantly on voluntary compliance by federal contractors, and this approach could not ensure that contractors were complying with basic requirements like developing and maintaining an AAP. By signing a qualifying federal contract, covered contractors are required to develop an AAP within 120 days of contract commencement and update it annually. However, OFCCP had no process for ensuring that the tens of thousands of establishments that had signed a qualifying federal contract do so. OFCCP has taken steps towards implementing a mechanism to monitor AAPs but has not fully implemented this recommendation. In 2018 OFCCP contracted with an information technology vendor to develop a web-based portal to allow contractors to upload their AAPs electronically for convenience, increased compliance, and for OFCCP review and resource prioritization. Officials anticipate delivery of the portal by the close of fiscal year 2019. Simultaneously, according to officials, OFCCP has developed the necessary information collection request to obtain approval from OMB to collect all contractors’ AAPs annually. The agency anticipates that OMB approval will be timely to align with completion of the AAP portal. Facilitate timely compliance officer training. In 2016, we found that OFCCP may not be providing timely training for new compliance officers. According to OFCCP officials, budget constraints had made it difficult to hold timely centralized training for new compliance officers. In half of the regions we visited, compliance officers or management officials we spoke with noted that this training was not provided in a timely manner after new officers are hired. For example, one compliance officer told us they worked for 8 months before receiving formal training. In one district office, compliance officers we spoke with explained that the lack of uniform, timely training made compliance officers feel unprepared when they began their job. Further, without providing timely training to new compliance officers, OFCCP cannot ensure consistency in its enforcement efforts across its offices. OFCCP has taken steps to improve its training program, but has not fully implemented this recommendation. In 2018, OFCCP retained an expert consultant to assess its national training program and standardize its training development and evaluation process. The assessment was completed in 2019 and a plan of action was created to address any program gaps, according to agency officials. Officials reported that the plan of action was fully implemented in fiscal year 2019 and OFCCP obtained a 5 year International Association for Continuing Education and Training (IACET) accreditation for its program. OFCCP officials told us they are developing a learning management system that will allow new compliance officers easy access to training soon after the hiring. OFCCP plans for the system to include the development of course requirements by level of competence— basic, intermediate, and advanced. OFCCP officials told us they plan to roll out the new system in January 2020. Weaknesses in Oversight Efforts Impact EEOC’s and OFCCP’s Effectiveness in Ensuring Nondiscrimination and Equal Employment Opportunity in the Technology Sector In November 2017, we reported that the estimated percentage of minority technology workers had increased from 2005 to 2015, however, while we found statistically significant increases in the numbers of Asian and Hispanic workers, no growth had occurred for either female or Black workers (see figure 2). Further, female, Black, and Hispanic workers remain a smaller proportion of the technology workforce—mathematics, computing, and engineering occupations—compared to their representation in the general workforce. These groups have also been less represented among technology workers inside the technology sector—those companies that have the highest concentration of technology workers in such industries as computer systems design and software publishing—than outside the technology sector such as retail or finance companies. In contrast, Asian workers were more represented in these occupations than in the general workforce. As a result of our work, we made one recommendation to EEOC and five recommendations to OFCCP (see table 2). EEOC has taken action, but not fully implemented our recommendation on identifying missing standard industry classification data from its handling of charges. By providing guidance to contractors regarding the option to include more specific goals in their AAPs, OFCCP has taken actions to implement one of our six recommendations—to take steps toward requiring contractors to disaggregate demographic data for the purpose of setting placement goals in the AAP. The agency has not taken action to fully implement our other four recommendations that focus on improving oversight, as shown in table 2 and discussed below. With regard to the recommendations that have not been fully implemented, EEOC and OFCCP have taken action to date as described below. Capture standard industry classifications on charges. In our November 2017 report, we found that EEOC could not analyze charge data by industry to help identify investigation and outreach priorities. This was inconsistent with EEOC strategic planning documents and EEOC Inspector General reports which, had emphasized the importance of analyzing charge data by industry. EEOC’s inability to analyze charge data by industry limits EEOC’s ability to identify trends by industry sector and conduct sector-related analyses that could be used to more effectively to focus its limited enforcement resources and outreach activities. EEOC has taken some action towards addressing missing industry code data, but has not taken actions sufficient to fully implement this recommendation. As part of an effort to overhaul its data system, EEOC has begun developing an Employer Master List that will provide a source of employer information, including industry codes, but EEOC told us that it has not yet completed this effort. It anticipates this system will be more fully developed by spring 2020. Use data on closed evaluations to address delays. In our November 2017 report, we found that OFCCP did not analyze data on closed evaluations to understand the root causes of delays in its compliance review process that may be straining its resources and inhibiting OFCCP’s efforts to identify potential discrimination. This evaluation could help OFCCP determine whether changes are needed in its own internal policies and processes, as well as guide OFCCP’s selection of improved methods for obtaining complete, accurate, and timely documentation from federal contractors. OFCCP has taken actions but it does not fully address this recommendation. In June 2019, OFCCP officials reported that OFCCP’s procedures outlined in the Active Case Enforcement Directive (DIR 2011-01) caused delays in case closures, but it does not indicate that this conclusion resulted from the recommended analysis of internal process data from closed evaluations. OFCCP officials reported that the agency’s aged case rate—defined as a case which is open for more than 730 days and has not been referred for further enforcement— has dropped from 27.7 percent in fiscal year 2017 to 20.9 percent in fiscal year 2019, though they did not report any corresponding change in case outcomes. In September 2019, OFCCP officials told us they continue to study causes and how to address delays with effective policies that make the agency more efficient. Assess the methods used to consider industry disparities in compliance. In our November 2017 report, we found that OFCCP’s current methodology for identifying disparities by industry—using data from the American Community Survey—may not have accurately identified industries at greatest risk of potential noncompliance with nondiscrimination and affirmative action requirements. In its agency response to our November 2017 report, OFCCP officials reported that the agency was exploring the use of U.S. Census Bureau and administrative data to refine its selection process to focus on industries with a greater likelihood of noncompliance. OFCCP has taken some action, but has not fully implemented this recommendation. In January 2019, DOL officials reported that DOL had revised its scheduling methodology to include industries with the highest rates of violations. OFCCP published the scheduling list in March 2019 and its field offices started scheduling cases in May 2019. OFCCP stated it will continue to monitor results from this revised scheduling methodology to determine its effectiveness. It will be important for OFCCP to refine these methods based on its experiences with them. This new process is a step toward focusing efforts on industries at greater risk of potential noncompliance with nondiscrimination or affirmative action requirements. Evaluate establishment-based approach to compliance evaluations. In our November 2017 report, we found that OFCCP had made no changes to its establishment-based approach since OFCCP was founded in 1965. However, OFCCP officials acknowledged the changing nature of a company’s work can involve multiple locations and corresponding changes in the scope of hiring and recruitment. OFCCP has taken some action, but has not fully addressed this recommendation. In fiscal year 2019, OFCCP evaluated its current approach for identifying subcontractors for review. OFCCP stated that the current approach does not reliably include subcontractors in the pool from which contractors are scheduled because there is no government or public database that captures the complete universe of subcontractors and other important data. In June 2019, OFCCP submitted revisions to its process to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for approval. Evaluate the Functional Affirmative Action Program. In November 2017, we found that OFCCP had not evaluated its Functional Affirmative Action Program (FAAP)—an alternative affirmative action program for a business function or unit that may exist at multiple establishments or multi-establishment contractors. OFCCP offered the FAAP so that companies could move away from establishment-based reviews, which may be more appropriate for some multi-establishment contractors. However, few contractors participate in this program and the agency has not conducted an evaluation of it. OFCCP has taken some action, but has not fully implemented this recommendation. OFCCP has taken steps to encourage contractors to use the FAAP program without fully evaluating it as an alternative to the establishment-based program. Evaluating the FAAP could help OFCCP improve its ability to achieve its objectives and may provide broader insight for OFCCP’s overall enforcement approach. Few Faith-based Grantees Certified They Were Exempt from Statutory Restrictions on Religious-based Hiring In our October 2017 report, we found that from fiscal years 2007 through 2015, 9 of the 117 potential FBOs we identified across HHS, DOJ, and DOL, certified that they were exempt based on RFRA from nondiscrimination laws related to religious-based hiring (see fig. 3). As a result, the nine FBOs were allowed to consider a prospective employees’ religious faith when making employment decisions. All nine of the FBOs were awarded funding by DOJ primarily through the agency’s Justice Programs, and collectively received approximately $3.2 million, which is less than 1 percent of the $804 million in grants that DOJ awarded that were subject to statutory restrictions from fiscal years 2007 to 2015. HHS, DOJ, and DOL awarded funding to at least 2,586 grantees through 53 grant programs that were subject to statutory restrictions on religious- based hiring. The number of relevant grant programs could be higher because GAO could not identify all such programs due to data limitations. We interviewed six of the nine faith-based grantees that certified that they were exempt from religious-based hiring restrictions. Each of the six grantees emphasized the importance of hiring someone of the same religious faith to assist with grant activities. For example, the grantees said that hiring someone with the same religious faith was critical to their mission and organizational success, and if the RFRA exemption were not available, they may not have sought the grant. We also interviewed grantees from five of 35 potential FBOs that did not certify that they were exempt from statutory restrictions based on religious-based hiring to see if they were aware of the potential for an exemption. The five grantees said that they did not recall seeing information about the exemption option in the grant application or grant award documentation. They said that they also may not have been looking for the information because they were not considering religion in their hiring decisions. HHS, DOJ, and DOL used various methods for informing grant applicants and recipients of the statutory restrictions on religious-based hiring and their processes for obtaining an exemption from such restrictions. Specifically: DOJ had made this information available on agency web pages as well as in the documentation that is provided to grant recipients. DOL had a web page dedicated specifically to explaining statutory restrictions on religious-based hiring to faith-based grant applicants and recipients, which also covers the process for seeking exemptions from the restrictions. In addition to providing information in grant announcements, HHS provided all Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services grant applicants seeking funds for substance abuse prevention and treatment services with a form that cites laws and regulations governing religious organizations that receive grant funding, including the regulation that outlines the exemption process. As we reported in 2016, DOJ, DOL, and HHS all required grantees that seek to make employment decisions based on religion to self-certify that they met requirements to be eligible for an exemption from statutory restrictions on religious-based hiring, but varied in how they reviewed and approved requests for approval. All three agencies required that faith- based grantees complete a form or some written request to demonstrate their eligibility for the exemption, but DOL is the only agency that reviewed and approved the requests. For example, DOL required that faith-based grantees submit their requests for the exemption for review and approval by the Assistant Secretary responsible for issuing or administering the grant. Conversely, while DOJ and HHS required that faith-based grantees submit a form or written request, respectively, neither reviewed nor approved the requests. On August 15, 2019, OFCCP proposed regulations intended to clarify the scope and application of the religious exemption to help religious employers with federal contracts and subcontracts and federally assisted construction contracts and subcontracts better understand their obligations. OFCCP proposes to add definitions of the following terms: exercise of religion; particular religion; religion; religious corporation, association, educational institution, or society; and sincere. In addition, the proposed rule states that the religious exemption should be construed to provide the broadest protection of religious exercise permitted under the Constitution and related laws, consistent with the administration policy to protect religious freedom. The stated intent of the proposed rule is to make clear that religious employers who contract with the federal government can condition employment on acceptance of or adherence to religious tenets, provided that they do not discriminate on other bases. Chairwoman Bonamici, Senior Republican Comer, and Members of the Subcommittee, this completes my prepared statement. I would be pleased to respond to any questions you may have at this time. GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments If you or your staff have any questions about this testimony, please contact Cindy Brown Barnes, Director, Education, Workforce and Income Security Team at (202) 512-7215 or brownbarnesc@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this statement. GAO staff who made key contributions to this testimony are Blake Ainsworth, Amber Yancey- Carroll, Melinda Bowman, Sheranda Campbell, Sarah Cornetto, Mary Crenshaw, Helen Desaulniers, Holly Dye, Michael Erb, Monika Gomez, LaToya King, Joel Marus, Diana Maurer, Heidi Neilson, James Rebbe, Katrina Taylor, Rosemary Torres Lerma, Kathleen van Gelder, and Betty Ward Zukerman. This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.


Background Federal Roles and Responsibilities Related to FLW Vary In 2015, the President signed Executive Order 13693, “Planning for Federal Sustainability in the Next Decade.” This executive order called for federal agencies to, among other things, advance waste prevention and pollution prevention in federal facilities, operations, and vehicles by diverting at least 50 percent of nonhazardous solid waste, including food and compostable material, but not construction and demolition debris, in their internal operations annually, and pursue opportunities for net-zero waste or additional diversion opportunities. In May 2018, Executive Order 13693 was revoked and replaced by Executive Order 13834, “Efficient Federal Operations,” which directed federal agencies to implement waste prevention and recycling measures but no longer included the specific direction to divert at least 50 percent of nonhazardous solid waste, including food and compostable material, annually or to pursue opportunities for net-zero waste or additional diversion opportunities. CEQ and OMB are responsible for implementing and tracking progress for these executive orders. Among its duties, EPA oversees municipal solid-waste management. For example, EPA regulates the management of household, industrial, and manufacturing solid and hazardous wastes under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. The objectives of the act include protecting the United States from the hazards of waste disposal, to conserve energy and natural resources by recycling and recovery, and to minimize the generation of hazardous waste. However, the management of nonhazardous solid waste, such as food waste, is left primarily to the states and local governments. Under the act, EPA established solid- waste management guidelines for municipalities that encouraged recycling, including composting food and yard waste. EPA’s Sustainable Materials Management Program, including the Sustainable Management of Food strategic priority area, seeks to reduce the environmental impact of materials through their entire life cycle. Furthermore, available landfill space is decreasing in various parts of the United States; EPA’s FLW activities may help extend the life of those existing landfills and provide opportunities for energy generation. According to USDA officials, USDA has developed a broad range of programs and policies to reduce FLW as a means to support its overarching objectives related to reducing food insecurity, improving food safety, increasing market efficiencies, and enhancing farmer income and rural development. USDA also conducts education and outreach through its network of state and local offices, the Cooperative Extension Service, state Departments of Agriculture, land-grant university partners, and nongovernmental, nonprofit, community, and faith-based organizations. Additionally, the 2018 Farm Bill requires the Secretary of Agriculture to take a number of actions to address FLW: (1) create a FLW Reduction Liaison to coordinate federal, state, local, and nongovernmental programs, and other efforts, to measure and reduce the incidence of FLW; (2) conduct a study on food waste in consultation with the FLW Reduction Liaison and report data collected on food waste and efforts to reduce and prevent such waste; (3) issue guidance outlining the best practices to minimize food waste for donated commodities; (4) enter into cooperative agreements with local or municipal governments to develop and test strategies for planning and implementing municipal compost plans and food waste reduction plans; (5) establish a milk donation program to encourage the donation of milk products produced and processed in the United States, assist individuals in low-income groups, and reduce food waste; and (6) establish a Local Agriculture Market Program to, among other things, promote new business opportunities and marketing strategies to reduce on-farm food waste. Finally, FDA, which is responsible for, among other things, overseeing the safety of about 80 percent of the nation’s food supply, has a limited mission related to FLW. FDA was not involved with establishing the national FLW reduction goal in 2015 but, according to agency officials, has become more engaged in consumer education and outreach to the food industry, hunger relief and food rescue organizations, state and local governments, academia, and other stakeholders on issues related to FLW. By signing the 2018 formal agreement on collaboration and coordination with EPA and USDA, FDA has committed to taking further actions to reduce FLW. Varying Definitions Inform Methodologies for Measuring Food Loss and Waste Definitions of FLW vary among the various organizations, including federal agencies, working in this area, which inform different methodologies for measuring and reporting FLW. For example, consistent with its focus on advancing the sustainable use of materials, including food, throughout their life cycle to minimize waste and environmental impacts, EPA uses the term “wasted food” instead of “food waste” for food that is not used for its intended purpose because it conveys that a resource with value is being wasted, whereas “food waste” implies that the food no longer has value and needs to be managed as waste. EPA states that “wasted food” is managed in a variety of ways, including through donations to food banks, conversion to animal feed, composting, anaerobic digestion, or sending it to landfills. In contrast, USDA’s Economic Research Service (ERS) defines food loss as edible food that is available for human consumption but that is not eaten. According to ERS, food losses may occur for any number of reasons, including cooking loss and natural shrinkage; loss from mold, pests, or inadequate climate control; and plate waste, which refers to edible food that is served but discarded. In addition, ERS defines food waste as a component of food loss that refers to food discarded by retailers and consumers due to quality concerns, such as blemished food. ERS takes this approach in support of its effort to estimate the nation’s available food supplies, which it adjusts to account for nonedible parts of foods and losses throughout the food supply chain. USDA has noted that definitions of FLW vary worldwide. For example, FAO differentiates food loss from food waste based on the stage of the food supply chain in which the amount of edible food decreased. FAO refers to food loss as the decrease in edible food that occurs throughout the production and processing stages of the food supply chain, whereas food waste occurs at retail and consumer stages of the food supply chain. These varying definitions have led to different methodologies for measuring and reporting FLW. For example, EPA estimates the amount of food from residences, commercial establishments (such as grocery stores), and institutional establishments (such as schools) that is disposed of through landfills or converted to energy, while ERS estimates the amount, value, and calories of postharvest food losses at the retail and consumer stages of the food supply chain. In addition, ERS and FAO FLW estimates do not include inedible parts, whereas, with its focus on materials management, EPA’s estimates do. Food Loss and Waste Occurs throughout the Food Supply Chain, and Options to Reduce It Vary FLW can occur across the entire food supply chain, occur at more than one stage (e.g., spoilage), or be unique to a specific stage, as seen in figure 1 below. However, the share of total FLW due to each of these causes is currently unknown, according to a USDA report. EPA’s Food Recovery Hierarchy, shown in figure 2 below, focuses on different options for reducing FLW. According to EPA, the top levels of the hierarchy are the best ways to reduce FLW because they create the most benefits for the environment, society, and the economy. Source reduction is the preferred option for reducing FLW because it provides the greatest benefits in terms of environmental sustainability. This is because growing food requires resources, such as land, water, fertilizer, and pesticides. In contrast, food that is sent to landfills generates greenhouse gases, such as methane. Prevention refers to reducing the amount of surplus food generated at any stage of the food supply chain. For example, businesses, such as restaurants, may prevent FLW through better planning and food preparation techniques. Diversion includes recovering food by donating edible food to feed hungry people or sending food scraps to feed animals. Diversion also includes recycling food scraps for industrial uses, such as waste-to- energy generation or anaerobic digestion, or for composting. Disposal refers to food that is sent to landfills, incinerators, or washed into sewers. According to USDA, some FLW is inevitable and, therefore, entirely eliminating FLW is unrealistic. For example, USDA ERS reports that there is a practical limit to how much FLW in the United States could be reduced, given different factors, such as food safety concerns, the perishability of foods, storage and temperature considerations, and risk management for production and marketing uncertainties, and resource constraints to recover uneaten food for another use, among others. According to USDA officials, to be successful, FLW reduction strategies should consider the economic incentives and disincentives faced by stakeholders across the food supply chain. Nonfederal Stakeholders Cited Various Challenges to Reducing Food Loss and Waste in the United States Nonfederal stakeholders we interviewed cited various challenges that exist to reducing FLW in the United States. Through our analysis of those interviews, we identified three key areas: (1) limited data and information about the amounts and causes of FLW; (2) a lack of awareness and education about FLW; and (3) limited infrastructure and capacity, which can hamper efforts to reduce FLW. In some instances, the nonfederal stakeholders also provided their views for ways federal agencies could potentially address the identified challenge areas. Nonfederal Stakeholders Said Data and Information about Amounts and Causes of FLW Are Limited Through interviews with nonfederal stakeholders, we identified limited data and information about the amounts and causes of FLW as a challenge to reducing FLW in the United States. For example, several stakeholders told us that data gaps associated with the different food supply-chain stages make it challenging to estimate FLW. For example: An international organization published a study in 2011 that included estimates of FLW by different regions and different stages of the food supply chain. The organization reported in its study that there were major data gaps in the knowledge of global FLW, such as the causes of FLW. Representatives of this organization told us that a challenge to measuring and estimating FLW is the lack of data on the various stages of the food supply chain. They are proposing a new methodology intended to help countries measure FLW along the supply chain in a cost-effective manner and monitor progress in reducing FLW. Researchers from two academic institutions told us there are challenges to estimating farm-production food losses. For example, researchers from one of these academic institutions told us that farm- production losses fluctuate from year to year based on changes in markets and growing conditions, such as weather, which can make estimating FLW more challenging. In addition, these researchers told us more information is needed about how different economic factors, such as the existence of secondary (alternative) markets to sell excess food, or changes in farming costs such as increases in labor costs, may influence FLW. One nonprofit organization reported that data at the farm-production stage of the food supply chain are limited, including data on what happens to some food at that stage. For example, there are limited data about whether produce that goes unsold is tilled back into the farmland, composted, or sent to a landfill. This nonprofit organization reported the limitations of its estimate of FLW across the food supply chain in the United States. For example, the nonprofit organization documented in its FLW estimate methodology that its farm-production FLW data analysis focused on estimating imperfect-produce rates, but noted that FLW may occur at this stage for a variety of reasons, including inclement weather, pests, or overproduction. It also documented that future research efforts could assess actual produce imperfection and loss rates for each produce type using geographical differences to improve estimate accuracy. Representatives from another nonprofit organization that has published an estimate of FLW told us there are data gaps about FLW along the food supply chain. For example, this nonprofit organization reported in 2017 that improved research is needed regarding farm- production data and FLW estimates of the consumer stage of the food supply stage. In addition, this nonprofit organization reported that one challenge is the absence of standardized measurement methodologies and common metrics to help entities representing all food supply-chain stages accurately estimate FLW, develop strategies to reduce FLW, and measure progress. In this report, they noted that federal agencies’ efforts to develop a mechanism to aggregate and disseminate FLW information as it is gathered by businesses and institutions, among others, would be beneficial to all stakeholders. Representatives of a third nonprofit organization stated that FLW measurement methodologies need to be tailored to the particular stages of the food supply chain and that the strategies to reduce FLW need to respond to the conditions associated with specific foods. Nonfederal Stakeholders Identified a Lack of Education and Awareness about FLW Nonfederal stakeholders identified a lack of education and awareness about FLW as a challenge to reducing FLW. For example, an official from one state told us that there is a lack of awareness among various organizations about the benefits of preventing FLW. Specifically: One state official told us that there is a lack of awareness among food producers, businesses, and consumers about the benefits of preventing FLW. According to this official, to address this challenge the state developed a strategic action plan that prioritizes focusing upstream in the food supply chain to prevent FLW, as opposed to the more traditional focus on increasing FLW diversion, such as through composting. This official also told us that implementing organic waste (e.g., food waste or other plant and animal materials) bans, which prohibit specified waste generators from sending food waste to landfills, as several states are doing to reduce FLW, tends to promote FLW reduction activities further down on EPA’s Food Recovery Hierarchy. As a result, organic waste bans may contribute relatively little to reducing FLW or maximizing the benefits of such reductions. This official emphasized that additional steps are needed to increase awareness about the benefits of prioritizing prevention through shifts in supply chains, purchasing, and consumption patterns to reduce FLW. Officials from two states told us there is a lack of resources to support efforts to educate consumers about FLW. For example, one state official told us that the state agency has insufficient staff resources to do effective outreach regarding FLW, and current staff members do not yet have the expertise to fully educate and assist consumers and businesses about all options available to reduce FLW. Another state official told us that the state would like to do a state-wide social marketing campaign to disseminate education and information about FLW to household consumers, but the state lacks sufficient resources to launch such an effort. Representatives of a nonprofit food donation organization identified a lack of education and awareness about date labeling as one of the challenges to reducing FLW. For example, the representatives told us that consumer confusion about date labels may be an impediment to reducing FLW among consumers. However, in these representatives’ view, reducing date labeling confusion is unlikely to lead to additional food donations. In addition, an academic institution representative, in collaboration with other authors, reported that a driver of household FLW is consumer confusion over date labels and conducted a survey to gain information about consumer perceptions of date labels. They concluded from their research that increasing consumer education on the meaning of date labels can help to reduce FLW. A representative of a nonprofit food donation organization told us that education and awareness about liability protections and compliance are lacking for various potential food donors and may hinder some food producers from donating food and, by extension, reducing FLW. Nonfederal Stakeholders Said Limited Infrastructure and Capacity Can Hamper Efforts to Reduce FLW Through interviews with nonfederal stakeholders, we identified that limited infrastructure and capacity is a challenge that can hamper efforts to reduce FLW. For example: Representatives of a nonprofit food donation organization that receives food donations cited a lack of sufficient capacity and logistical support to collect and distribute available food. For example, representatives told us that food pantries may not have a sufficient volunteer workforce or enough food storage capacity to be able to distribute all donated food to needy people. Food industry representatives told us that businesses have infrastructure limitations, such as a lack of transportation options to deliver excess food to food pantries or composting facilities. For example, representatives told us that if such facilities were available, food scraps, such as produce peels, could be used as animal feed or composted. However, if the infrastructure to utilize these options is not available, the companies generating the FLW may opt to send it to landfills instead. An official from one state told us that the state does not have access to the infrastructure and capacity needed to separate contaminants in order to be able to divert FLW for other uses, such as animal feed, composting, or anaerobic digestion. For example, this state official told us that the state does not have access to the necessary equipment to separate plastic and other packaging materials from food waste in order to be able to process FLW through anaerobic digesters. Officials of another state provided a study stating that removing packaging from food waste can be an obstacle to successful FLW diversion and that separation of food waste for composting or other diversion can be costly. In addition, a representative of one international organization told us that federal agencies could facilitate a collaborative approach with industry stakeholders to develop voluntary industry standards on food packaging materials and food portion sizes to help reduce FLW in the United States. Officials from another state told us that a lack of food recycling infrastructure limits their ability to enforce the state’s organic waste ban and reduce FLW. A state official told us that the state has one anaerobic digester facility to process food waste, but additional recycling infrastructure would be needed statewide to enable food waste generators, such as hospitals or schools, to recycle their food waste instead of sending it to landfills. EPA and USDA Have Taken Initial Actions to Address Key Challenge Areas to Reducing Food Loss and Waste Since announcing the national FLW reduction goal in 2015, EPA and USDA have taken initial actions to address challenges in the three key areas that nonfederal stakeholders identified to reduce FLW. For example, EPA and USDA have taken actions to provide improved data and information about FLW in the United States; educate and increase awareness of FLW along the food supply chain; and expand the infrastructure and capacity to support efforts to reduce FLW. EPA and USDA Have Provided Some Data and Information on Food Loss and Waste in the United States EPA and USDA have provided some data and information about FLW in the United States. Specifically: In a 2018 report, EPA published trends of food waste materials generation, among other materials, and provided updated information about municipal solid waste being generated, recycled or composted, landfilled, and combusted with energy recovery using 2015 data from residential, commercial, and institutional sources. According to EPA, food waste represents the largest percentage of landfilled material in municipal solid waste, as seen in figure 3 below. EPA relies on gathering these data on food waste generation and management from studies conducted by other organizations, such as state and local governments and food waste generators. EPA measures certain FLW diversion activities (i.e., divert food to a destination other than landfill or incineration). For example, in September 2018 EPA completed an effort to quantify the number and capacity of anaerobic digestion facilities in the United States. EPA also aggregates and publishes data submitted by EPA’s Food Recovery Challenge program participants on recycling fats, oils, and grease, which may otherwise be disposed of through wastewater. For example, participating restaurants may submit data on the amount of fats from their fryer grease containers that they send for recycling through rendering, conversion to biofuels, or to an anaerobic digester. In addition, EPA develops estimates of food waste composting based on a review of state environmental agency websites, as well as published reports. EPA updates its FLW estimates annually. EPA officials stated that these annual estimates are the most comprehensive annual estimates of generated and managed FLW and that EPA plans to use these estimates to track progress. However, EPA officials acknowledged certain limitations in using these estimates to track annual progress against the 2030 goal. For example, EPA officials stated that data challenges include limited studies available for some sectors and the lack of geographic coverage, among others. EPA is taking steps to improve its FLW estimates. For example, officials stated that in 2017 EPA embarked on an effort to improve its food measurement methodology to reflect all potential FLW generating sectors for which there are data, and to characterize how food is being managed beyond composting and landfill. USDA has also provided some data and information about FLW at various stages of the food supply chain in the United States since 2015. Specifically: ERS is working on initiatives to refine and improve its data system in order to support its ongoing efforts to estimate FLW at the retail and consumer stages of the food supply chain. For example, USDA officials told us they are developing a proposal for an external expert panel to analyze food loss estimates at the consumer stage of the food supply chain and make recommendations for data updates. In addition, USDA officials told us that work is under way to update the retail-level loss estimates of selected foods. In addition, in December 2017, ERS initiated work on a study to identify gaps in information about farm-level FLW. According to ERS officials, as part of the study, ERS will describe the existing data- collection challenges and address the economic factors that influence farmers’ decisions as they relate to FLW at the farm level. For example, one factor could involve a farmer deciding to plow excess produce into the fields instead of harvesting or processing the crop if the potential additional labor or operations costs exceed the potential revenue. One senior ERS official told us that ERS expects to issue the study by the end of calendar year 2019. Additionally, ERS officials told us that USDA could use the final study to inform USDA’s policy approaches to reducing FLW. For example, the report may inform USDA’s efforts to assist farmers in implementing best practices in reducing FLW and expanding market opportunities for imperfect fruits and vegetables or excess harvest. USDA’s National Institute for Food and Agriculture has provided grant funding to projects related to FLW. For example, the institute awarded a grant in 2018 to an academic institution to study the effect of secondary markets as alternative channels for usable food. To advance the research mission of the agency, among other reasons, USDA has a memorandum of understanding with the Foundation for Food and Agriculture Research, an organization that Congress authorized as part of the 2014 Farm Bill. The Foundation for Food and Agriculture Research conducts research in six defined challenge areas, including one area that focuses research on inefficiencies in the food system, such as FLW. EPA and USDA Have Taken Some Actions to Educate and Build Awareness about Food Loss and Waste EPA and USDA have taken some actions to educate and build awareness about FLW in the United States since announcing the national FLW reduction goal in 2015. For example, EPA published its Sustainable Materials Management Program Strategic Plan, Fiscal Years 2017-2022 in October 2015. One of the plan’s three strategic priority areas is Sustainable Food Management, which includes an action area of promoting opportunities to reduce wasted food and the food’s associated effects over the entire food supply-chain life cycle with a preference for using approaches that are higher on the agency’s Food Recovery Hierarchy. EPA’s strategic plan describes delivering tools and education; working with states and local communities to help provide regional or sector-based support; and sharing best practices on wasted-food reduction efforts. In addition to the planned actions identified in the Sustainable Food Management area, EPA has also provided the following FLW education and awareness tools, among others: Food: Too Good to Waste. This community-based social marketing campaign, implementation guide, and toolkit aim to reduce wasteful household food management practices and keep FLW out of landfills. The toolkit is designed for community organizations, local governments, households, and others interested in reducing wasteful household food management practices. The implementation guide is designed to teach local governments and community organizations how to implement a Food Too Good to Waste campaign in their community using the toolkit. In a 2016 report, EPA listed 17 communities in various states, including Rhode Island and Vermont, that had implemented Food Too Good to Waste campaigns and, as part of this implementation, could use outreach and engagement tools adaptable to the needs of their communities based on their available resources. The campaigns focused on helping households make small shifts in how they shop, prepare, and store food to prevent it from being wasted. Waste Reduction Model. According to the agency’s website, EPA created this tool to help solid-waste planners and organizations track greenhouse gas emissions reductions from several different waste- management practices, including source reduction, recycling, anaerobic digestion, combustion, composting, and landfilling. For example, a food service establishment can use the tool to create an estimate of the greenhouse gas savings associated with decreasing the amount of bread and produce landfilled. Tip sheets. EPA developed tip sheets about reducing FLW for different sectors involved in the food supply chain, including manufacturers and restaurants, to emphasize FLW prevention options. EPA officials told us that they make these tip sheets available online on the agency’s website and attend conferences to disseminate information. For example, the officials said that they attended the Midwest Food Recovery Summit in September 2018 and provided these tip sheets at the EPA information booth during the conference. In addition, USDA has been involved in the following FLW reduction efforts to raise awareness and educate various stakeholders along the food supply chain: FLW roundtable meeting. In May 2018, the Secretary of Agriculture hosted a roundtable meeting with members of Congress, food industry representatives, and nonprofit groups to raise awareness about FLW and discuss potential solutions. FoodKeeper application. In 2015, USDA, in partnership with Cornell University and the Food Marketing Institute, launched the FoodKeeper application, a tool to provide consumers with specific storage advice, including storage timelines for the refrigerator and freezer for food and beverage items. USDA officials stated that the agency updated the application in October 2018 to include various features including searching for food and beverages in Spanish and increasing the number of food items with storage information. USDA has continued to highlight the FoodKeeper application as part of USDA and EPA’s Food Waste Challenge effort to help educate consumers to reduce FLW. Infographic. Also in 2015, the USDA Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion issued an infographic, “Let’s Talk Trash,” to help inform American consumers about the benefits of reducing FLW, as shown in figure 4. USDA made the infographic available on its www.choosemyplate.gov website, which includes additional resources to help consumers think about the amount of FLW at home. Strategies for schools. In 2015, USDA’s Food and Nutrition Service issued a summary of strategies for schools to reduce FLW that included a list of resources to encourage FLW diversion by donating uneaten food to nonprofit institutions and information about composting. The Food and Nutrition Service also recommended that schools introduce “share tables” into cafeterias so that students could exchange unwanted but otherwise edible food items. In June 2016, USDA issued a memorandum to remind states’ Child Nutrition Program directors of the opportunities to use share tables to reduce FLW in a number of Child Nutrition Programs, such as the National School Lunch Program. In July 2016, the Food and Nutrition Service issued guidance directed at school staff members and students, among others, with tips to prevent FLW, including encouraging students to use share tables. To further provide information, raise awareness, and educate different stakeholders along the food supply chain, EPA and USDA have collaborated on the following FLW reduction efforts: A Guide to Conducting Student Food Waste Audits. In 2017, EPA, USDA, and the University of Arkansas collaborated to create this guide for students and school personnel about the amount of FLW in their cafeterias. The guide provides information on why and how to do a food waste audit and what to do with the data collected. It also offers FLW prevention ideas. Public/private partnerships. EPA and USDA support public/private partnerships to provide key information, solutions, and best practices to reduce FLW across the food supply chain. For example, EPA and USDA established the U.S. Food Loss and Waste 2030 Champions initiative in November 2016 as a way to increase efforts to meet the national FLW reduction goal. This 2030 Champions initiative recognizes organizations that have committed to cutting FLW in their own operations in half by 2030 and encourages Champions to report on their progress. In May 2018, EPA hosted a public webinar to highlight the actions of three 2030 Champions to share best practices, tools, and resources these organizations created to prevent food from going to waste. In March 2019, USDA officials told us that eight additional businesses have joined the 15 Champions involved in the initiative since its launch. In addition, EPA and USDA also support Further With Food, an online hub developed by EPA, USDA, and 10 other organizations that provides information and solutions to raise public awareness and reduce FLW. Participation in external conferences. EPA and USDA have conducted outreach, including through participation in conferences and seminars, and have disseminated resources related to FLW. For example, EPA and USDA each sent an official to attend and present at the National Academies of Science’s Reducing Food Loss and Waste: A Workshop on Impacts in October 2018. USDA officials told us they helped fund this workshop and helped develop the workshop’s objectives, which were to explore the effects of reducing FLW on food availability and other factors; to examine the role of governments, nongovernmental organizations, and the private sector in adopting best practices to improve the benefits and reduce the costs of reducing FLW; and to discuss opportunities for partnerships to address FLW. USDA has also collaborated with FDA to address FLW. For example, USDA and FDA are both on the Executive Board of the Conference for Food Protection, an organization that brings together representatives from the food industry, government, academia, and consumer organizations to identify and address emerging problems of food safety. In April 2016, this group released a Comprehensive Resource for Food Recovery Programs to reduce FLW through the recovery of consumable food. This report is intended to assist stakeholders involved in the recovery, distribution, or service of food to people who are food insecure. The report references the national food standards at the retail level, as expressed in the FDA Food Code, to minimize the occurrence of risk factors that contribute to foodborne illness. FDA contributed to the submission of an issue to the 2018 Biennial Meeting of the Conference for Food Protection that sought to promote uniformity in the way in which state and local governments regulate food donation and recovery operations in retail and foodservice establishments. In addition, FDA has disseminated information to the public about strategies to reduce FLW while maintaining food safety and has referred to USDA’s FoodKeeper application as a resource for learning how to store perishable food and employ safe storage practices. EPA and USDA Have Taken Some Actions to Increase Infrastructure and Capacity to Support Efforts to Reduce FLW EPA and USDA have each taken some actions to increase infrastructure and capacity to support efforts to reduce FLW in the United States. EPA has taken some actions to increase infrastructure and capacity to reduce FLW in the United States. For example: Technical assistance. EPA provides technical assistance to state and local governments in developing anaerobic digestion projects, a technology to process wasted food that is more desirable than landfilling or incineration, according to EPA’s Food Recovery Hierarchy. Excess Food Opportunities Map. EPA’s Excess Food Opportunities Map displays the locations of more than 500,000 industrial, commercial, and institutional food generators that may potentially produce excess food and more than 4,000 potential recipients of that excess food. The map also provides information at the specific establishment–level, including estimates of excess food generation that may help users identify alternatives to sending excess food to landfills. The map helps users identify potential infrastructure gaps for managing excess food, inform FLW management decisions at the local level, and identify potential sources of food for rescue and reuse, among other purposes. An EPA official told us that the communication plan for the launch of the Excess Food Opportunities Map included a webinar announcing the map in July 2018 and providing presentations about the map at various conferences, including during the National Academies Reducing Food Loss and Waste Workshop in October 2018. The official also stated that emails about the map were sent to over 13,000 people and approximately 700 people attended the webinar EPA hosted in July 2018. Recycling infrastructure. EPA’s Sustainable Materials Management program’s strategic plan describes EPA’s role in providing states, businesses, and other stakeholders with, among other things, tools, guidelines, and technical support to more effectively manage waste, including by helping increase recycling infrastructure. In May 2018, EPA cohosted a recycling infrastructure workshop to identify solutions for creating infrastructure for anaerobic digestion and composting. In addition, EPA officials told us that the agency is in the process of updating its recycling guide for state and local governments and they anticipate completing it by the end of 2020. USDA also has taken some actions to increase infrastructure and capacity to reduce FLW in the United States. For example: Food programs. USDA officials told us that USDA food programs, such as The Emergency Food Assistance Program, support efforts to feed people and to provide access to affordable and nutritious food. For example, food donation organizations that are recipients of program funds may use these funds to pay the direct expenses associated with the distribution of USDA foods, such as fruits, vegetables, and beans. New FLW-reduction technologies. USDA’s Agricultural Research Service has various research programs, including one to enhance the quality and utilization of agricultural products. Potential benefits listed as part of this research program are minimizing food product losses and reducing FLW through the development of farm production technologies, such as the development of an apple-sorting system that will help reduce apple harvest losses. According to USDA officials, most of the innovations of this research program involve creating value-added products from “ugly produce” or from food processing byproducts, such as orange peel or mushroom-stalk waste, or creating new technologies to prolong the shelf life of food products. Meat and poultry donation rules. USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service issued a directive that outlines procedures for donating certain meat and poultry products to nonprofit organizations. The Food Safety and Inspection Service has also begun, under certain circumstances, to recognize food banks as “retail-type” establishments, which allows food banks to break down bulk shipments of federally inspected meat or poultry products, wrap or rewrap those products, and label the products for distribution to consumers. In one case, this recognition enabled a nonprofit organization engaged in food donations to gain 2.6 million pounds of food donations from manufacturers in 2016, according to USDA documents. Grant funding. USDA’s Rural Utilities Service has provided some funding to support FLW reduction infrastructure in rural communities. For example, USDA awarded a 2016 USDA Rural Utilities Service Solid Waste Management grant to the University of Iowa’s Waste Reduction Center, which has worked toward addressing the issue of FLW disposal. More recently, in 2018, USDA awarded a solid-waste management grant to the Center for EcoTechnology, a nonprofit that provides technical assistance to implement FLW diversion programs. Low-interest loans. USDA’s Farm Storage Facility Loan Program provides low-interest loans for producers to store, handle, and transport the food they produce. The loans are designed to assist a diverse range of farming operations, including small and midsized businesses and operations supplying local food and farmers markets. The program helps keep food from being damaged by pests or inclement weather, among other things, so that more food can reach store shelves. Funding for renewable energy systems. USDA’s Rural Energy for America Program provides grants and loan guarantees to farmers, ranchers, and eligible small businesses to install renewable energy and energy-efficiency systems. For example, according to a Rural Energy for America Program Fact Sheet, funds may be used for the purchase, installation, and construction of renewable energy systems, such as anaerobic digesters. In a 2016 USDA Rural Development report, USDA provided examples of anaerobic digesters that use FLW to produce a biogas that is converted into energy. EPA, USDA, and FDA Have Done Some Initial Planning toward Achieving the National FLW Reduction Goal EPA and USDA have each taken some actions to plan and organize their efforts toward achieving the national FLW reduction goal, such as issuing strategic plans and establishing working groups. Additionally, EPA, USDA, and FDA signed a joint agency formal agreement in October 2018 aimed at increasing collaboration and coordination among the agencies on FLW reduction efforts. EPA, USDA, and FDA only recently initiated their interagency collaboration on FLW reduction efforts toward achieving the national FLW reduction goal, but have not yet taken certain steps that align with key practices for interagency collaboration. EPA has taken actions to guide its own efforts toward achieving the national FLW reduction goal. For example, in 2015, EPA issued a strategic plan that included a strategic priority area of sustainable food management. Subsequently, EPA developed an internal planning document (U.S. EPA Sustainable Management of Food Strategy, Fiscal Year 2018-2022). This planning document established action areas, goals, and activities for reducing FLW to achieve the national FLW reduction goal. For example, the plan identified five action areas, including addressing data and measurement issues, collaboration and partnerships, technical assistance, infrastructure and capacity, and communication and outreach. According to EPA officials, the agency intends to use the plan to track its progress and measure results towards the national FLW reduction goal. USDA has also taken actions to guide its own efforts toward achieving the national FLW reduction goal. For example, according to USDA officials, the department established a FLW working group in 2015 that currently meets on a monthly basis. According to officials from the Office of the Chief Economist and ERS, the department also designated an individual within the Office of the Chief Economist to guide USDA’s FLW efforts. In addition, in March 2016, the National Institute for Food and Agriculture’s Pilot Science Outcome Committee on Environmental Sustainability identified FLW as a top science priority area to address environmental sustainability. According to the committee, FLW is an integral component of environmental sustainability, and mitigating FLW has the potential to create economic, environmental, and social benefits while contributing to food security, resource conservation, and the mitigation of climate change. Furthermore, EPA and USDA have contributed to the work of the Commission for Environmental Cooperation, an intergovernmental organization established by the governments of Canada, Mexico, and the United States to facilitate effective cooperation on the conservation, protection, and enhancement of the environment in their territories. The organization has an initiative to identify challenges, opportunities, and solutions related to increasing organic waste diversion and processing capacity in North America. This organization issued a report in 2017 about, among other things, the management of organic waste and best practices for reducing FLW and diverting other organic waste materials away from landfills. EPA is on the steering committee for this effort. According to an EPA announcement in March 2019, the commission issued a practical guide and technical report on FLW measurement. Moreover, in October 2018, the Secretary of Agriculture hosted a public meeting to promote FLW reduction. During this meeting, EPA, USDA, and FDA signed a formal interagency agreement referred to by the agencies as the Winning on Reducing Food Waste initiative. Under this 2-year agreement, the agencies committed to developing an interagency strategic plan to increase collaboration and coordination among the agencies on their FLW reduction efforts. According to the agreement, this additional collaboration is intended to strategically align each agency’s efforts to better educate Americans on the impacts of reducing FLW. The agencies also agreed to, where appropriate, educate actors throughout the supply chain on the best practices to reduce FLW in the growing, manufacturing, transporting, selling, and disposing of food and the handling, preparation, and storage of food, as well as creating new uses for excess food. The formal agreement mentions public-private partnerships and, according to EPA officials, the agencies intend to use the views of stakeholders in the public, private, and nonprofit sectors to inform their strategic plan. According to EPA officials, the agencies intend to discuss common goals and to identify additional initiatives as appropriate to achieve the national FLW reduction goal. In announcing this initiative, the Secretary of Agriculture affirmed the importance of reducing FLW by saying that “an unacceptable percentage of our food supply is lost or wasted” and that “as the world’s population continues to grow and the food systems continue to evolve, now is the time for action to educate consumers and businesses alike on the need for food waste reduction.” In addition, the FDA Commissioner stated that “by taking steps to address obstacles that food donation and recovery programs may face in giving unsold foods a second opportunity and helping food producers find ways to recondition their products so that they can be safely sold or donated, our aim is to both reduce food waste and nourish Americans in need.” In April 2019, the agencies held a public event to announce their Winning on Reducing Food Waste Federal Interagency Strategy. This strategic plan identified six prioritized action areas for activities to reduce FLW. For example, the agencies plan to, among other things, increase consumer education and outreach efforts; increase coordination and guidance on FLW measurement; and clarify and communicate information on food safety, food date labels, and food donations. In addition, the agencies signed a formal agreement with ReFED to, among other things, better evaluate and improve upon strategies to reduce FLW. For example, according to the 2019 agreement, the agencies and ReFED intend to leverage existing partnerships to advance data-collection and measurement activities related to FLW. Finally, EPA announced that it had selected three recipients to receive EPA funding to support infrastructure projects to help reduce FLW and divert FLW from landfills. In our prior work, we have found that key practices to enhance and sustain interagency collaboration include agreeing on roles and responsibilities and developing mechanisms to monitor, evaluate, and report on results. In addition, we have found that key practices for agency collaboration call for clearly defining short- and long-term outcomes. Furthermore, such interagency efforts benefit from identifying how leadership commitment will be sustained. Lastly, we identified a key practice that calls for ensuring that the relevant stakeholders have been included in the collaborative effort. This collaboration can include other federal agencies, state and local entities, and private and nonprofit organizations. According to the strategic plan, the agencies built on information from several sources, including prior GAO work on implementing interagency collaborative mechanisms, to develop the Winning on Reducing Food Waste Federal Interagency Strategy. However, this strategic plan does not align with certain key practices for interagency collaboration. For example, the first priority area identified in the strategic plan is to enhance interagency collaboration, and the strategic plan states that an interagency, collaborative mechanism will be established to reduce programmatic redundancies and leverage complementary activities. However, the strategic plan does not identify how this mechanism will be used to monitor, evaluate, or report on results, establish a time frame for developing this collaborative mechanism, or describe how the agencies will engage relevant stakeholders, such as other federal, state, and local agencies, nonprofit organizations, academic institutions, food industry entities, international organizations, and tribal organizations. In addition, several of the strategic plan’s priority areas address specific aspects of reducing FLW, such as encouraging FLW reduction by federal agencies in their respective facilities. However, the strategic plan does not identify the roles and responsibilities of the respective agencies for taking action in these areas and it does not clearly define what specific short- and long- term outcomes the agencies intend to achieve. Furthermore, the agencies have not identified how they intend to sustain leadership commitment to this goal. For example, the Winning on Reducing Food Waste formal interagency collaborative agreement is a 2-year agreement among the agencies, but the national FLW reduction goal calls for reducing FLW by half by 2030, which falls well beyond this 2-year time frame. According to a USDA official, the agencies do not have plans for how they will continue their interagency collaboration beyond the life of the current agreement. This official noted that the agencies do not intend to update the strategic plan for the duration of the 2-year agreement and that the agencies will release more information to the public about specific actions and timelines as it becomes available. By incorporating leading practices for interagency collaboration as they implement their interagency strategic plan, EPA, USDA, and FDA would have better assurance that they are effectively collaborating toward achieving the national FLW reduction goal. Conclusions Achieving the national FLW reduction goal could provide significant economic, environmental, and social benefits to the United States, such as helping to lower consumer expenses, reducing harmful greenhouse gas emissions, and providing additional meals to feed food-insecure people through increased food donations. This is an important issue that requires action across the food supply chain and collaboration among federal agencies and nonfederal stakeholders, such as states and businesses. EPA and USDA have taken steps to develop programs and policies that aim to reduce FLW and to collaborate on their various initiatives. In addition, EPA, USDA, and FDA have taken some actions to plan and organize their efforts toward achieving the national goal of reducing FLW by half by 2030, including announcing an interagency strategic plan to reduce FLW. However, this strategic plan does not align with key practices in interagency collaboration that we have identified, such as agreeing on roles and responsibilities; developing mechanisms to monitor, evaluate, and report on results; clearly defining short- and long- term outcomes; identifying how leadership commitment will be sustained; and ensuring that the relevant stakeholders have been included in the collaborative effort. By incorporating such leading practices for interagency collaboration as they implement their interagency strategic plan, EPA, USDA, and FDA would have better assurance that they are effectively collaborating toward achieving the national FLW reduction goal. Recommendations for Executive Action We are making three recommendations to the agencies in our review. Specifically: The Administrator of EPA should work with the Commissioner of FDA and Secretary of Agriculture to incorporate leading collaboration practices as they implement their interagency FLW reduction strategic plan, to include (1) agreeing on roles and responsibilities; (2) developing mechanisms to monitor, evaluate, and report on results; (3) clearly defining short- and long-term outcomes; (4) identifying how leadership commitment will be sustained; and (5) ensuring that the relevant stakeholders have been included in the collaborative effort. (Recommendation 1) The Commissioner of FDA should work with the Administrator of EPA and Secretary of Agriculture to incorporate leading collaboration practices as they implement their interagency FLW reduction strategic plan, to include (1) agreeing on roles and responsibilities; (2) developing mechanisms to monitor, evaluate, and report on results; (3) clearly defining short- and long-term outcomes; (4) identifying how leadership commitment will be sustained; and (5) ensuring that the relevant stakeholders have been included in the collaborative effort. (Recommendation 2) The Secretary of Agriculture should work with Administrator of EPA and Commissioner of FDA to incorporate leading collaboration practices as they implement their interagency FLW reduction strategic plan, to include (1) agreeing on roles and responsibilities; (2) developing mechanisms to monitor, evaluate, and report on results; (3) clearly defining short- and long-term outcomes; (4) identifying how leadership commitment will be sustained; and (5) ensuring that the relevant stakeholders have been included in the collaborative effort. (Recommendation 3) Agency Comments We provided a draft of this report to EPA, USDA, and the Department of Health and Human Services for review and comment. We also provided CEQ and OMB a draft of this report for review. In its comments, reproduced in appendix I, EPA agreed with our recommendation to the agency and described current and future actions to implement the recommendation. Similarly, in its comments, reproduced in appendix II, USDA agreed with our recommendation to it and described current and future actions to implement the recommendation. In addition, in its comments, reproduced in appendix III, the Department of Health and Human Services concurred with our recommendation to it and described current and future actions to implement the recommendation. USDA and CEQ provided technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate. In response to our recommendations, EPA, USDA, and the Department of Health and Human Services said that they will work with each other to incorporate leading collaboration practices as they implement the interagency FLW reduction strategic plan. Both EPA and USDA also stated that they intend to complete implementation of their respective recommendations by October 2020, to align with the duration of the 2- year formal agreement between EPA, USDA, and FDA. The Department of Health and Human Services stated that FDA issued a letter to the food industry supporting the industry’s efforts to standardize voluntary quality date labeling. We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional committees, the Administrator of EPA, the Secretary of Agriculture, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, the Director of OMB, the Chair of CEQ, and other interested parties. In addition, the report will be available at no charge on the GAO website at http://www.gao.gov. If you or your staff members have any questions concerning this report, please contact me at (202) 512-3841 or morriss@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions to this report are listed in appendix IV. Appendix I: Comments from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Appendix II: Comments from the U.S. Department of Agriculture Appendix III: Comments from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments GAO Contact Staff Acknowledgments In addition to the contact named above, Anne K. Johnson (Assistant Director), Joseph Capuano (Analyst in Charge), David Bennett, Carol Bray, Tara Congdon, Juan Garay, Serena Lo, Greg Marchand, Jordan Mettica, Oliver Richard, Dan Royer, Marie Suding, Kiki Theodoropoulos, and Sarah Veale made key contributions to this report.