SB1395, the “NO TIME TO Waste Act,” would create a new federal framework at the U.S. Department of Agriculture to reduce food loss and food waste. It establishes an Office of Food Loss and Waste, defines key terms such as food loss, food recovery, food waste, and upcycled food products, and directs USDA to coordinate research, education, reporting, and policy development across federal, state, local, tribal, nonprofit, and private-sector partners. The bill also requires USDA to track progress toward the national goal of cutting food loss and waste 50 percent from 2016 levels by 2030 and to publish public reports on that progress.
The bill would also expand grantmaking and coordination efforts. It creates grant programs for data collection on state and local food waste policies, food recovery infrastructure, and public-private partnerships, while also establishing regional coordinators to help connect food producers, processors, distributors, and food recovery organizations. In addition, it amends the Federal Food Donation Act to require federal contractors to report on food loss, food waste, and food donations, and it prioritizes food-loss research in USDA grant programs. The bill further directs USDA to launch a national education and awareness campaign on food waste, including consumer guidance on date labels, food safety, composting, and upcycled food products.
If enacted, the bill would amend multiple federal statutes and programs, including the Department of Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994, the Emergency Food Assistance Act of 1983, the Federal Food Donation Act of 2008, and USDA research grant authorities. It would authorize new appropriations totaling several million dollars annually from fiscal years 2026 through 2030 for the office, grants, coordination, partnerships, and public awareness campaign. The practical effect would be to expand USDA’s role in food waste prevention, data collection, infrastructure support, and interagency coordination, while also creating new reporting and compliance obligations for federal contractors.
The available record shows no committee debate, votes, or recorded opposition, so the overall sentiment cannot be measured from discussion history. Based on the bill text, the measure appears broadly constructive and policy-oriented, emphasizing research, education, and collaboration rather than mandates on consumers or producers. The bill’s design suggests support for food recovery advocates, local governments, nonprofits, and parts of the food industry, while potential points of concern could include the cost of new programs, the added reporting burden on federal contractors, and the administrative complexity of coordinating multiple agencies and grant programs.
The bill would create a new USDA Office of Food Loss and Waste, authorize regional coordinators, establish grant programs for food recovery infrastructure, policy data collection, and public-private partnerships, and launch a national food waste education campaign. It would also amend the Federal Food Donation Act of 2008 to require contractor reporting and direct USDA to prioritize food-loss research in existing grant programs. The bill would affect federal agencies, state and local governments, tribal governments, nonprofits, food recovery organizations, and federal contractors, while authorizing new appropriations for fiscal years 2026 through 2030.
No committee transcript or vote history is available, so there is no recorded floor or committee sentiment to summarize. From the bill text alone, the measure appears to have a positive, bipartisan, and technocratic framing focused on reducing waste, improving food recovery, and supporting research and education. Its emphasis on partnerships and public reporting suggests an effort to build broad stakeholder support.
There is no documented debate in the provided record, but the most likely areas of contention are the bill’s new federal spending, the creation of a new USDA office and regional coordinator structure, and the expanded reporting requirements for federal contractors. Some stakeholders may also question the scope of federal involvement in state and local food waste policy, the 50 percent reduction target, or the requirement that grant recipients provide matching contributions. Others may support the bill but differ on how much emphasis should be placed on composting versus food recovery, or on how prescriptive the federal government should be in setting model policies and campaign messaging.