These Flow-By-Sector (FBS) datasets capture food waste flows between waste-generating sectors and waste management pathways. The sectors are generally North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) 2012 codes. The first dataset, method 1 (m1), attributes food waste generation and disposition data from the USEPA Wasted Food Report to sectors. The second method, method 2 (m2), attributes wasted food data from the National Commercial Non-Hazardous Waste (CNHW) FBS dataset to sectors. These food waste datasets were generated with FLOWSA v1.3.2 (https://github.com/USEPA/flowsa/tree/v1.3.2). M1 is generated with https://github.com/USEPA/flowsa/blob/v1.3.2/flowsa/methods/flowbysectormethods/Food_Waste_national_2018_m1.yaml and m2 is generated with https://github.com/USEPA/flowsa/blob/v1.3.2/flowsa/methods/flowbysectormethods/Food_Waste_national_2018_m2.yaml. The metadata text files included as a supporting document records the FLOWSA tool version and input dataset bibliographic details. The CNHW data were generated in FLOWSA v1.3.0, with the method file https://github.com/USEPA/flowsa/blob/v1.3.0/flowsa/methods/flowbysectormethods/CNHW_national_2018.yaml.

The volume of food waste generated in the United States has been growing since 2016. In 2019, ***** million tons of food waste were generated in the country. This is an increase of almost **** million tons compared to the food waste generated in 2016.

This statistic represents the volume of wasted food in the United States in 2015, broken down by facility. In that year, American households generated approximately 27 million metric tons of food waste.

Food waste in the United States – additional information Farms, grocery stores, and restaurants are often blamed for creating vast amounts of food waste, where in reality, families and households generate the largest volume of wasted food, totaling some 27 million metric tons in the United States in 2015, which equaled about 144 billion U.S. dollars. A large proportion of food that goes to waste is from perishable items such as fruits and vegetables, which accounted for about 42 percent of waste in 2015. Fruit and vegetables are some of the least expensive, yet, fastest to spoil and thus, often get discarded. On the other hand, seafood and meats are among the most expensive items and are two of the least discarded products. In one survey, almost half of the American respondents believed that grocery stores could help consumers reduce waste by offering certain food items in smaller quantities. Others believed that offering bulk food bins and incentives to encourage buying things when they are needed could also reduce the production of food waste. Annually, the U.S. sends about 52.4 million tons of food to the landfill and another 10.1 million tons remain unharvested from farms. A significant portion of the unharvested food is due to cosmetic imperfections, but is mostly left on site to be composted. Waste from farms is usually only sent to landfills due to surplus and rejected products from packinghouses. However, only about 10 percent of food waste from consumer-facing businesses and homes are recycled and recovered. Transportation costs for food scraps tend to be disproportionately high and market values for energy and compost end products from scraps are worth less than those garnered from plastics and metals.

This Excel-based life cycle inventory (LCI) model develops LCI data for management of wasted food via anaerobic digestion (AD), windrow and aerated static pile (ASP) composting, landfilling and incineration. The inventory model is run for the following scenario options: >AD biogas fate: flare, combined heat and power (CHP) and renewable natural gas (RNG) >Landfill gas fate: flare, electric engine, and RNG >Compost method: windrow and ASP >Incineration technology: Grate furnace - mass burn >Digestate management: compost + land application, land application of whole digestate and digestate landfilling >Land application modeling is limited to avoided fertilizer credits and carbon sequestration benefit. Estimating emissions associated with land application is beyond the scope of this model. Implicitly, emissions associated with compost and digestate are assumed to be equivalent to those from avoided synthetic fertilizer, leading to a net zero change in impact when changing nutrient sources. The output is stored in the 'LCI' tab which can be exported into a csv or other text-based file. Definitions for the field names in the LCI sheet is included in the 'LCI Key' tab.

These data were used to generate the results in the article “Household Food Waste Trending Upwards in the United States: Insights from a National Tracking Survey,” by Ran Li, Yiheng Shu, Kathryn E. Bender & Brian E. Roe, which has been accepted for publication in the Journal of the Agricultural and Applied Economics Association (doi – https://doi.org/10.1002/jaa2.59). The Stata code used to generate results is available from the authors upon request. U.S. residents who participate in consumer panels managed by a commercial vendor were invited by email or text message to participate in a two-part online survey during four waves of data collection: February and March of 2021 (Feb 21 wave, 425 initiated, 361 completed), July and August of 2021 (Jul 21 wave, 606 initiated, 419 completed), December of 2021 and January of 2022 (Dec 21 wave, 760 initiated, 610 completed), and February, March and April of 2022 (Feb 22 wave, 607 initiated, 587 completed), July, August and Septemper of 2022 (Jul 22 wave, 1817 initiated, 1067 completed). We are not able to determine if any respondents participated in multiple waves, i.e., if any of the observations are repeat participants. All participants provided informed consent and received compensation. Inclusion criteria included age 18 years or older and performance of at least half of the household food preparation. No data was collected during major holidays, i.e., the weeks of the Fourth of July (Independence Day), Christmas, or New Years. Recruitment quotas were implemented to ensure sufficient representation by geographical region, race, and age group. Post-hoc sample weights were constructed to reflect population characteristics on age, income and household size. The protocol was approved by the local Internal Review Board. The approach begins with participants completing an initial survey that ends with an announcement that a follow-up survey will arrive in about one week, and that for the next 7 days, participants should pay close attention to the amounts of different foods their household throws away, feeds to animals or composts because the food is past date, spoiled or no longer wanted for other reasons. They are told to exclude items they would normally not eat, such as bones, pits, and shells. Approximately 7 days later they received the follow-up survey, which elicited the amount of waste in up to 24 categories of food and included other questions (see supplemental materials for core survey questions in Li et al. 2023). Waste amounts in each category are reported by selecting from one of several ranges of possible amounts. The gram weight for categories with volumetric ranges (e.g., listed in cups) were derived by assigning an appropriate mass to the midpoint of the selected range consistent with the food category. For the categories with highly variable weight per volume (e.g., a cup of raw asparagus weighs about 7 times more than a cup of raw chopped arugula), we use the profile of items most consumed in the United States to determine the appropriate gram weight. For display purposes, the 24 categories are consolidated into 8 more general categories. Total weekly household food waste is calculated by summing up reported gram amounts across all categories. We divide this total by the number of household members to generate the per person weekly food waste amount.

This statistic represents the value of food wasted in the United States in 2015, by facility. In that year, American households generated food waste worth of some 144 billion U.S. dollars. In total, food worth of about 218 billion U.S. dollars was wasted by households, consumer-facing businesses, farms and manufacturers in 2015.

This statistic shows the results of a survey among Americans in 2017 in regards to their most commonly wasted food types, with a breakdown by ethnic group. As of March 2017, some 58 percent of Hispanic or Latin American respondents stated that they threw away dairy products most often.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has collected and reported data on the generation and disposal of waste in the United States for more than 30 years. We use this information to measure the success of waste reduction and recycling programs across the country. Our trash, or municipal solid waste (MSW), is made up of the things we commonly use and then throw away. These materials include items such as packaging, food scraps, grass clippings, sofas, computers, tires, and refrigerators. MSW does not include industrial, hazardous, or construction waste. The data on Materials Discarded in the Municipal Waste Stream, 1960 to 2009, provides estimated data in thousands of tons discarded after recycling and compost recovery for the years 1960, 1970, 1980, 1990, 2000, 2005, 2007, 2008, and 2009. In this data set, discards include combustion with energy recovery. This data table does not include construction & demolition debris, industrial process wastes, or certain other wastes. The "Other" category includes electrolytes in batteries and fluff pulp, feces, and urine in disposable diapers. Details may not add to totals due to rounding.

The data archived here are the raw data required to reproduce all analysis presented in a manuscript currently in press at Resources, Conservation & Recycling.Read, Q. D. & Muth, M. K. (2020). Cost-effectiveness of four food waste interventions: is food waste reduction a "win-win?" Resources, Conservation & Recycling, in press.This dataset is intended for use with the code archived at https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4021655 . Please refer to the README.md file in that repository for instructions on how to download the data and reproduce the analysis.The data archived in this repository are from a variety of different sources. As much as is practicable, they are presented here in their raw form as they were downloaded, without any processing. All processing steps can be replicated using the code archived in the accompanying code repository.Abstract of manuscriptAt least 30% of food is wasted during the journey from farm to processor to retailer to consumer in the United States, accounting for an estimated 20% of the environmental impact of the food system. The food waste problem is well characterized, but solutions are not: there has been little rigorous comparison of the costs and potential benefits of food waste reduction interventions. Food waste reduction is often described as a “win-win,” benefiting consumers, the environment, and businesses’ bottom line. We present a method for evaluating this claim by accounting for the costs and environmental benefits of food waste reduction. The procedure involves assembling data on costs and efficacy of the intervention, scaling the costs up to the national level, estimating the quantity and value of food waste averted, and finally estimating the potential averted environmental impact. We apply our method to four representative nationwide interventions: consumer education and public awareness campaigns, spoilage prevention packaging for produce and meat, standardization of date labels, and foodservice waste tracking systems. The estimated annual cost of each intervention varied from $126 to $595 million. The environmental cost-effectiveness of the interventions varied two- to threefold (for example, 6 to 16 kg CO2 reduced per $1 invested). Outstanding questions include how to scale interventions to the national level and how to address the mismatch between who incurs the costs of implementation and who benefits. Our method can be adapted to waste interventions across the food system and in countries beyond the United States.

This data set is the result of a systematic review of studies on food waste disposed in the United States, an issue which major consequences for social, nutritional, economic, and environmental issues. It was created to determine how much food is discarded in the U.S., and to determine if specific factors drive increased disposal. By applying meta-analytic tools on it this dataset, it was found that the aggregate proportion of food waste in U.S. municipal solid waste from 1995 to 2013 was 0.147 (95% CI 0.137–0.157) of total disposed waste, which is lower than that estimated by U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for the same period (0.176). Further, that the proportion of food waste increased significantly with time, and there were no significant differences in food waste between rural and urban samples, or between commercial/institutional and residential samples. These results are published in the study titled Quantification of Food Waste Disposal in the United States: A Meta-Analysis (Thyberg et al., 2015).

Summary statistics of food waste tendency (score of 0 to 100).

This dataset provides estimated tons generated and recycled by U.S. zip code and material. It relies on materials management reports and surveys from various states and regions, State Measurement Program (SMP) data, Ball Corporation’s Fifty States of Recycling report, EPA’s Excess Food Opportunities Map, and the U.S. Census Bureau’s American County Survey dataset. Quantities generated and recycled by zip code were estimated by dividing state reported generation and recycled quantities by the population for each state and for each material to arrive at state-specific per capita rates and then those per capita rates were applied to the population of each zip code in each corresponding state. Estimated recycling potential for each material is the difference between estimated tons generated and estimated tons recycled. Those zip codes with the greatest difference in generated and recycled tons have higher estimated recycling potential. The data was then integrated with a U.S. Census Bureau Tiger Database zip code shapefile to create the resulting data layer. The zip code shapefile was simplified to remove vertices. This dataset includes 16 recyclable material types: aluminum, cardboard, electronics, food waste, glass, HDPE bottles #2, PET bottles #1, PET other #1, PP (polypropylene) containers #5, rigid plastics #3 to #7, steel cans, tires, paper, textiles, yard trimmings, and wood. Note that there are certain materials for which data are not available for every state. In these cases, the layer will only display zip codes where data is available. This dataset is a snapshot of U.S. recycling quantities, infrastructure, and materials markets as of 2019-2021. The map was created by Industrial Economics, Inc. (IEc), a consultancy supporting EPA to develop the Recycling Infrastructure and Market Opportunities Map. The map is managed by EPA’s Office of Land and Emergency Management. This project was supported in part by an appointment to the Research Participation Program at the Office of Land and Emergency Management, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, administered by the Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education through an interagency agreement between the U.S. Department of Energy and EPA.

This statistic represents the value of food that was waste every year in households in the United States in 2018, with a breakdown by leading state. In this year, households in Texas wasted about 1,100.82 U.S. dollars worth of food. About a quarter of food in American households is wasted each year.

Snapshot img

Food Waste Management Market Size 2024-2028

The food waste management market size is forecast to increase by USD 9.13 billion, at a CAGR of 4.25% between 2023 and 2028.

The market is experiencing significant growth due to escalating concerns regarding carbon emissions and their environmental impact. This trend is driven by increasing public awareness and government initiatives to reduce food waste and promote sustainability. The market is further fueled by the emergence of numerous startups, introducing innovative solutions to address food waste management challenges, and the conversion of such food waste into bio-based products and organic fertilizers. However, this market landscape is not without obstacles.
The risks of fire accidents in food waste management facilities pose a significant challenge, necessitating stringent safety measures and regulatory compliance. Companies in this sector must navigate these challenges while capitalizing on the growing market potential to effectively reduce food waste, minimize carbon emissions, and contribute to a more sustainable future.

What will be the Size of the Food Waste Management Market during the forecast period?

Explore in-depth regional segment analysis with market size data - historical 2018-2022 and forecasts 2024-2028 - in the full report.
Request Free Sample

The market continues to evolve, driven by the growing awareness of the environmental and economic implications of food waste. Digester technology and composting facilities play a significant role in transforming food waste into valuable resources, such as biogas and nutrient-rich soil. Food waste audits and sorting equipment enable efficient waste management, ensuring that only inedible waste is sent for disposal or processing. Waste disposal and waste management equipment are essential components of the food waste management ecosystem, facilitating the transportation and treatment of waste. Waste management consulting services offer expertise in optimizing waste management systems, reducing waste, and implementing circular economy principles.

Sustainability metrics provide a framework for measuring the environmental impact of food waste management practices. The biogas market offers opportunities for energy recovery from food waste, while waste processing techniques such as anaerobic digestion and composting contribute to food security by producing organic fertilizers for agriculture. Organic farming and recycling rates are also benefiting from the increasing focus on sustainable waste management. Waste collection vehicles and transportation systems ensure the efficient collection and transport of food waste to processing facilities. Closed-loop systems and compost facility design optimize resource recovery and minimize environmental impact. Waste heat recovery and biogas scrubbers enhance the sustainability of food waste management processes.

Life cycle analysis and waste management software facilitate the assessment and optimization of food waste management systems. Waste diversion programs and waste reduction targets promote the adoption of source reduction strategies. Food waste tracking and landfill diversion initiatives help to minimize greenhouse gas emissions. Environmental regulations and consumer education are driving the adoption of food waste reduction practices. Food packaging optimization and carbon footprint reduction strategies are also gaining importance in the food waste management landscape. Waste reduction incentives and anaerobic digestion offer opportunities for businesses to reduce their environmental impact and generate revenue.

How is this Food Waste Management Industry segmented?

The food waste management industry research report provides comprehensive data (region-wise segment analysis), with forecasts and estimates in 'USD billion' for the period 2024-2028, as well as historical data from 2018-2022 for the following segments.

Method

  Landfill
  Recycling
  Incineration


Application

  Feed
  Fertilizers
  Biofuel
  Power generation


Geography

  North America

    US
    Canada


  Europe

    France
    Germany


  APAC

    China


  Rest of World (ROW)

.

By Method Insights

The landfill segment is estimated to witness significant growth during the forecast period.

The market is witnessing significant activity and evolving trends as various entities strive to minimize waste and promote sustainability. Digester technology, such as anaerobic digestion plants, plays a crucial role in transforming food waste into biogas for energy production. Composting facilities, using compost turners and sustainable facility designs, convert food waste into nutrient-rich soil for organic farming. Food waste audits, sorting equipment, and waste management consulting services ensure efficient waste processing and diversion from landfills. Sustainability metrics, recycling ra

United States Imports from China of Residues, wastes of food industry, animal fodder was US$271.32 Million during 2024, according to the United Nations COMTRADE database on international trade. United States Imports from China of Residues, wastes of food industry, animal fodder - data, historical chart and statistics - was last updated on June of 2025.

Graph and download economic data for Export Price Index (Harmonized System): Residues and Waste from the Food Industries; Prepared Animal Feed (ID23) from Dec 1992 to May 2025 about animals, waste, harmonized, exports, food, industry, price index, indexes, price, and USA.

Click here to download these data in a file geodatabase. Log into ArcGIS Online to download data directly from this feature service. Create an ArcGIS Online account.On America Recycles Day, 2020, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced a National Recycling Goal to increase the U.S. recycling rate of materials generated in municipal solid waste (MSW) to 50 percent by 2030. To further this goal and support the building of new recycling infrastructure through the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL), EPA developed a map displaying estimated generation of recyclable materials, estimated recycled quantities, existing recycling infrastructure, potential recycling end markets, and other MSW infrastructure such as landfills and transfer stations. The map can be used to identify infrastructure gaps, facilitate a needs analysis, and better understand where funding could be allocated to enhance markets.

This dataset provides estimated tons generated and recycled by U.S. ZIP code and material. It relies on materials management reports and surveys from various states and regions, State Measurement Program (SMP) data, the Ball Corporation's Fifty States of Recycling, EPA's EPA’s Excess Food Opportunities Map, and the U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey dataset. EPA estimated the quantities generated and recycled by ZIP code by dividing state reported generation and recycled quantities by the population for each state and for each material to arrive at state-specific per capita rates. Those per capita rates were then applied to the population of each ZIP code in each corresponding state. By clicking on the map, the user can see the estimated tons generated per capita and recycled per capita. Estimated recycling potential for each material is the difference between estimated tons generated and estimated tons recycled. The ZIP codes with the greatest difference in generated and recycled tons have higher estimated recycling potential.

The data were then integrated with a U.S. Census Bureau Tiger Database ZIP code shapefile to create the resulting data layer. The ZIP code shapefile was simplified to remove vertices. This dataset includes 16 recyclable material types: aluminum, cardboard, electronics, food waste, glass, HDPE bottles #2, PET bottles #1, PET other #1, PP (polypropylene) containers #5, rigid plastics #3 to #7, steel cans, tires, paper, textiles, yard trimmings, and wood. Note that there are certain materials for which data are not available for every state. In these cases, the layer will only display ZIP codes where data are available.

The map provides estimated U.S. recycling quantities, infrastructure, materials markets, and supporting market factors using the best available data at the time the map was developed (2021-2022). While data sources range from 2011 to 2021, most data are from 2018-2021. The map was created and by Industrial Economics, Inc. (IEc), a consultancy supporting EPA to develop the Recycling Infrastructure and Market Opportunities Map. The map is managed by EPA’s Office of Land and Emergency Management. This project was supported in part by an appointment to the Research Participation Program at the Office of Land and Emergency Management, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, administered by the Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education through an interagency agreement between the U.S. Department of Energy and EPA.

Diverting food waste from landfills is crucial to reduce emissions and meet Paris Agreement targets. Between 2014 and 2024, nine US states banned commercial waste generators---such as grocery chains---from landfilling food waste, expecting a 10–15% waste reduction. However, no evaluation of these bans exists. We compile a comprehensive waste dataset covering 36 US states between 1996 and 2019 to evaluate the first five implemented state-level bans. Contrary to policymakers' expectations, we can reject aggregate waste reductions higher than 3.2%, and cannot reject a zero-null aggregate effect. Moreover, we cannot reject a zero-null effect for any other state except Massachusetts, which gradually achieved a 13.2% reduction. Our findings reveal the need to reassess food waste bans, using Massachusetts as a benchmark for success., The raw data for this paper have been received by individual states in PDF or Excel files. (For each state there might be several PDF or Excel files for each year.) In the data we uploaded on GitHub, we transferred these raw data (the various pdfs and excels) into a single CSV file and have created a standardized waste outcome---specifically, state-generated, municipal solid waste (MSW) disposal. In the README file, we include more details regarding all the other supporting data and code we have used., , # Data for: Of the first five US states with food waste bans, Massachusetts alone has reduced landfill waste

https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.bzkh189h4

In this repository, we provide all the data and necessary information for replication of our paper titled "Of the first five US states with food waste bans, Massachusetts alone has reduced landfilled waste". We include all the raw data and software we used to produce all tables and figures in this paper. Additionally, for easy replication, we include some outputs generated by our code, such as power analysis results. These are available in the "Data from Code" section.

Raw data

1. Waste data: includes all the data we use for our analysis (power2_impexp.csv)
   • Note: in this file "disposal" refers to state-generated MSW for disposal. That is, we have (i) used only the MSW fraction of the total waste and (ii) excluded the imported waste and included waste exports. (For more details, please se...

United States Imports of Residues, wastes of food industry, animal fodder was US$5.45 Billion during 2024, according to the United Nations COMTRADE database on international trade. United States Imports of Residues, wastes of food industry, animal fodder - data, historical chart and statistics - was last updated on June of 2025.

This submission includes publicly available data extracted in its original form. Please reference the Related Publication listed here for source and citation information https://www.epa.gov/anaerobic-digestion/anaerobic-digestion-data-collection-project If you have questions about the underlying data stored here, please contact: Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N. W. MC 5306T Washington, D.C. 20460 If you have questions or recommendations related to this metadata entry and extracted data, please contact the CAFE Data Management team at: climatecafe@bu.edu. "EPA uses electronic surveys to collect the following types of information about anaerobic digestion facilities that accept food waste: - Names and locations of anaerobic digestion facilities processing food waste. - Operational dates. - Types and sources of food-based and non-food-based feedstocks. - The capacity for processing food waste. - Tipping fees. - Facility operations, such as de-packaging/preprocessing. - Biogas production, gas cleaning systems, and biogas end-uses. - Treatment methods and end uses of digestate. EPA surveys and collects data from operators of the following types of anaerobic digestion facilities that accept food waste: - Stand-alone food waste digesters. - On-farm digesters that co-digest food waste. - Digesters at water resource recovery facilities that co-digest food waste. EPA distributed the survey in 2017, 2018, 2019, 2021, 2023, and 2024. EPA will conduct data verification and analysis before closing out the anaerobic digestion data collection project in 2025." [Quote from https://www.epa.gov/anaerobic-digestion/anaerobic-digestion-data-collection-project]