National Plan to Cut Food Waste

Summary#

This bill directs the federal Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food to create a national strategy to cut wasted food across Canada. It lists required elements, such as public education, support for food donation and recovery, national targets, and reporting by parts of the food industry. The Minister must table the strategy in Parliament within two years, publish it, and report on its effectiveness every five years (Tabling (1); Review (1)).

• Sets a 2-year deadline to table a national food-waste strategy in Parliament (Tabling (1)).
• Requires the strategy to include national targets and industry reporting on wasted food and related emissions (Content (2)(g), (h)).
• Calls for public awareness campaigns, school materials, and exploration of better date labels (Content (2)(a), (e), (f)).
• Facilitates food donation and supports food recovery programs, especially in rural and Indigenous communities (Content (2)(d), (k)).
• Encourages private-sector leadership and cost-sharing for waste management strategies (Content (2)(i)).
• Requires periodic, 5-year reviews of the strategy’s effectiveness (Review (1)).

What it means for you#

• Households

  • May see national campaigns on how to buy, store, and use food to avoid waste (Content (2)(a)).
  • Could see clearer or alternative date labels that aim to reduce discarding safe food (Content (2)(f)).
  • School-age children may receive new lessons and materials on food waste and eco-conscious habits; school food programs may get educational support (Content (2)(e)).

• Workers and Consumers

  • No immediate new rules on individuals. Changes would come through programs, education, and any future regulations arising from the strategy (National Strategy Development (1); Content (2)).

• Food manufacturers, distributors, and retailers

  • Strategy must set reporting requirements on the amount of food wasted and related emissions (Content (2)(h)). This could require tracking and reporting systems once the strategy is in place.
  • May be asked to lead or help fund waste-reduction activities, such as donation logistics or diversion programs (Content (2)(i)). The bill does not define specific cost shares.
  • Could receive tools and guidance to prevent waste and facilitate donations (Content (2)(b), (d)).

• Farmers and producers

  • Included in potential reporting requirements on wasted food and related emissions (Content (2)(h)).
  • May benefit from tools to reduce losses and from donation or diversion pathways for surplus product (Content (2)(b), (d), (k)).

• Food banks and community organizations

  • Strategy must include measures to make donations easier and to support recovery programs, with attention to rural and Indigenous communities (Content (2)(d), (k)).

• Indigenous governing bodies and local/provincial governments

  • May receive incentives to share information on donations and recovery (Content (2)(j)).
  • Could be part of an assessed plan for composting food unfit for consumption and for wider organic waste diversion (Content (2)(g), (l)).
  • Will be consulted during strategy development (National Strategy Development (1)).

• Environment

  • Strategy must address reducing environmental impacts of unused food and study impacts in landfills and oceans (Content (2)(c), (m)).

• Timing and oversight

  • Strategy due within 2 years of the Act coming into force; published within 10 days after tabling (Tabling (1); Publication (2)).
  • Effectiveness review due 5 years after tabling, and every 5 years thereafter; each review must be published (Review (1); Publication (2)).

Expenses#

Estimated net cost: Data unavailable.

• No explicit funding or appropriations are authorized in the bill text. Any program spending would require separate budget decisions (Entire Act; absence of appropriations).
• The bill mandates development, tabling, and publication of a strategy and periodic reviews, which would use departmental resources; amounts are not stated (Tabling (1); Review (1)).
• Potential future costs or savings for governments, businesses, or households depend on measures chosen in the strategy (Data unavailable).

Proponents' View#

• A national plan creates clear targets and accountability across the supply chain, which is necessary since waste occurs at multiple stages (Content (2)(g), (h)).
• Public education and improved date labels can reduce avoidable household waste without heavy regulation (Content (2)(a), (f)).
• Easing donations and supporting recovery programs can redirect safe food to people in need, especially in rural and Indigenous communities (Content (2)(d), (k)).
• Studying composting and environmental impacts supports better waste diversion and emissions reductions from landfills (Content (2)(c), (l), (m)).
• Encouraging private-sector leadership and cost-sharing can lower taxpayer burden while leveraging industry expertise (Content (2)(i)).

Opponents' View#

• The Act sets broad goals but no funding. Without appropriations, promised campaigns, tools, or supports may be limited or delayed (Entire Act; absence of appropriations).
• New reporting requirements could impose administrative and compliance costs on producers, manufacturers, distributors, and retailers; the bill does not define scope, metrics, or enforcement (Content (2)(h)).
• Waste and recycling are areas where provinces and municipalities have primary roles; a federal strategy could duplicate or conflict with existing programs (National Strategy Development (1); Content (2)(l)).
• A 2-year window to table the strategy may postpone concrete action; communities and businesses may wait for direction before investing (Tabling (1)).
• Encouraging private-sector cost contributions could shift expenses onto businesses and, indirectly, consumers; the bill does not set limits or safeguards (Content (2)(i)).
• The bill requires targets and reporting but is silent on enforcement, dispute resolution, or privacy protections for reported data (Content (2)(g), (h); Entire Act).