Connect with us

News

State bans on commercial food waste have been largely ineffective, study finds

Published

on

State bans on commercial food waste have been largely ineffective, study finds

Garbage is unloaded into the Pine Tree Acres Landfill in Lenox Township, Mich., on July 28, 2022. State bans on commercial food waste have been largely ineffective, researchers found.

Paul Sancya/AP


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Paul Sancya/AP

In the U.S., more than a third of the food supply goes uneaten. The waste happens at multiple levels in the production and supply chain and is a big contributor to climate change.

Food that ends up decomposing in landfills produces methane — a potent greenhouse gas.

Some states have taken action to try to cut down on this food waste, but a new study finds that state bans on food waste in landfills have had little impact, with one exception.

Advertisement

The research, published in the journal Science on Thursday, looked at the first five states to enact food waste bans: California, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Vermont and Massachusetts. Between 2014 and 2024, nine states in total banned commercial food suppliers like Whole Foods and Applebee’s from disposing of food waste in landfills.

The laws require them to compost or donate food waste instead. Sending food scraps to compost facilities or specially designed digesters can better capture or reduce methane emissions.

But the new data found that these laws have done little to help.

“We can confidently say the laws didn’t work. They definitely didn’t achieve their intended goals,” said Robert Evan Sanders, an assistant professor of marketing at the Rady School of Management at the University of California San Diego and coauthor of the paper.

On average, the five state laws resulted in a 1.5% decrease in landfill waste between 2014 and 2018, Sanders told NPR. The researchers determined that regulators expected the laws to cut total waste going to landfills by 7-18% based on public documents and regulators’ statements to the press. 

Advertisement

“The laws had no discernible effect on total landfill waste,” said coauthor Ioannis (Yannis) Stamatopoulos, an associate professor at the University of Texas at Austin’s McCombs School of Business.

The researchers compared the five states in question to a combination of other similar states that did not implement a food waste ban. By comparing the states, they could predict how much total waste they would have created if the bans had not been implemented. They gathered data on waste from what environmental state agencies reported.

The researchers said they could not measure food waste directly, as that data doesn’t exist. But because organic waste is such a large component of total landfill waste, they reasoned that states would expect to see a measurable reduction in total waste.

According to the study, Massachusetts stood out as the only state to achieve its goal of minimizing how much waste ended up in landfills, reaching a 7% reduction on average over five years, Stamatopoulos said.

The paper’s authors said Massachusetts’ success may be partly due to certain steps the state took to make it easy for individuals and businesses to comply with the law.

Advertisement

Massachusetts had the most extensive network of food waste processing facilities, creating easy alternatives to landfills. Additionally, the law in Massachusetts had the fewest exemptions. “So that makes it easy for people to understand the laws,” Sanders said. The law was also enforced with inspections and fines, said Sanders. In contrast, the researchers wrote, “there is almost no enforcement in other states.”

Sanders notes that some states the study evaluated have improved their waste management programs since 2018, the year the study stopped collecting data. For example, in 2022, California started providing all residents and businesses with organic waste collection services. “They are trying to up enforcement and do the things that we know work,” said Sanders.

News

Supreme Court blocks redrawing of New York congressional map, dealing a win for GOP

Published

on

Supreme Court blocks redrawing of New York congressional map, dealing a win for GOP

The Supreme Court

Win McNamee/Getty Images


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Win McNamee/Getty Images

The Supreme Court on Monday intervened in New York’s redistricting process, blocking a lower court decision that would likely have flipped a Republican congressional district into a Democratic district.    
  
At issue is the midterm redrawing of New York’s 11th congressional district, including Staten Island and a small part of Brooklyn. The district is currently held by a Republican, but on Jan. 21, a state Supreme Court judge ruled that the current district dilutes the power of Black and Latino voters in violation of the state constitution.  
  
GOP Rep. Nicole Malliotakis, who represents the district, and the Republican co-chair of the state Board of Elections promptly appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, asking the justices to block the redrawing as an unconstitutional “racial gerrymander.” New York’s congressional election cycle was set to officially begin Feb. 24, the opening day for candidates to seek placement on the ballot.  
  
As in this year’s prior mid-decade redistricting fights — in Texas and California — the Trump administration backed the Republicans.   
 
Voters and the State of New York contended it’s too soon for the Supreme Court to wade into this dispute. New York’s highest state court has not issued a final judgment, so the voters asserted that if the Supreme Court grants relief now “future stay applicants will see little purpose in waiting for state court rulings before coming to this Court” and “be rewarded for such gamesmanship.” The state argues this is an issue for “New York courts, not federal courts” to resolve, and there is sufficient time for the dispute to be resolved on the merits. 
  
The court majority explained the decision to intervene in 101 words, which the three dissenting liberal justices  summarized as “Rules for thee, but not for me.” 
 
The unsigned majority order does not explain the Court’s rationale. It says only how long the stay will last, until the case moves through the New York State appeals courts. If, however, the losing party petitions and the court agrees to hear the challenge, the stay extends until the final opinion is announced. 
 
Dissenting from the decision were Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson. Writing for the three, Sotomayor  said that  if nonfinal decisions of a state trial court can be brought to highest court, “then every decision from any court is now fair game.” More immediately, she noted, “By granting these applications, the Court thrusts itself into the middle of every election-law dispute around the country, even as many States redraw their congressional maps ahead of the 2026 election.” 

Monday’s Supreme Court action deviates from the court’s hands-off pattern in these mid-term redistricting fights this year. In two previous cases — from Texas and California — the court refused to intervene, allowing newly drawn maps to stay in effect.  
  
Requests for Supreme Court intervention on redistricting issues has been a recurring theme this term, a trend that is likely to grow.  Earlier last month  the high court allowed California to use a voter-approved, Democratic-friendly map.  California’s redistricting came in response to a GOP-friendly redistricting plan in Texas that the Supreme Court also permitted to move forward. These redistricting efforts are expected to offset one another.     
   
But the high court itself has yet to rule on a challenge to Louisiana’s voting map, which was drawn by the state legislature after the decennial census in order to create a second majority-Black district.  Since the drawing of that second majority-black district, the state has backed away from that map, hoping to return to a plan that provides for only one majority-minority district.    
     
The Supreme Court’s consideration of the Louisiana case has stretched across two terms. The justices failed to resolve the case last term and chose to order a second round of arguments this term adding a new question: Does the state’s intentional creation of a second majority-minority district violate the constitution’s Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments’ guarantee of the right to vote and the authority of Congress to enforce that mandate?    
Following the addition of the new question, the state of Louisiana flipped positions to oppose the map it had just drawn and defended in court. Whether the Supreme Court follows suit remains to be seen. But the tone of the October argument suggested that the court’s conservative supermajority is likely to continue undercutting the 1965 Voting Rights Act.   

Advertisement
Continue Reading

News

Map: Earthquake Shakes Central California

Published

on

Map: Earthquake Shakes Central California

Note: Map shows the area with a shake intensity of 3 or greater, which U.S.G.S. defines as “weak,” though the earthquake may be felt outside the areas shown.  All times on the map are Pacific time. The New York Times

A minor earthquake with a preliminary magnitude of 3.5 struck in Central California on Monday, according to the United States Geological Survey.

The temblor happened at 7:17 a.m. Pacific time about 6 miles northwest of Pinnacles, Calif., data from the agency shows.

As seismologists review available data, they may revise the earthquake’s reported magnitude. Additional information collected about the earthquake may also prompt U.S.G.S. scientists to update the shake-severity map.

Source: United States Geological Survey | Notes: Shaking categories are based on the Modified Mercalli Intensity scale. When aftershock data is available, the corresponding maps and charts include earthquakes within 100 miles and seven days of the initial quake. All times above are Pacific time. Shake data is as of Monday, March 2 at 10:20 a.m. Eastern. Aftershocks data is as of Monday, March 2 at 11:18 a.m. Eastern.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

News

US says Kuwait accidentally shot down 3 American jets

Published

on

US says Kuwait accidentally shot down 3 American jets

The U.S. and Israel have been conducting strikes against targets in Iran since Saturday morning, with the aim of toppling Tehran’s clerical regime. Iran has fired back, with retaliatory assaults featuring missiles and drones targeting several Gulf countries and American bases in the Middle East.

“All six aircrew ejected safely, have been safely recovered, and are in stable condition. Kuwait has acknowledged this incident, and we are grateful for the efforts of the Kuwaiti defense forces and their support in this ongoing operation,” Central Command said.

“The cause of the incident is under investigation. Additional information will be released as it becomes available,” it added.

In a separate statement later Monday, Central Command said that American forces had been killed during combat since the strikes began.

“As of 7:30 am ET, March 2, four U.S. service members have been killed in action. The fourth service member, who was seriously wounded during Iran’s initial attacks, eventually succumbed to their injuries,” it said.

Advertisement

Major combat operations continue and our response effort is ongoing. The identities of the fallen are being withheld until 24 hours after next of kin notification,” Central Command added.

This story has been updated.

Continue Reading

Trending