A Funder’s Guide to the Current State of Federal Funding for Food Waste Solutions

The Opportunity in the Gap

Over the past decade, U.S. federal agencies have invested nearly $1 billion in food waste solutions. Notably, annual funding quadrupled, from an average of $31 million between 2015 and 2020 to $135 million between 2021 and 2025. Yet despite this progress, ReFED estimates that achieving meaningful food waste reduction requires approximately $3 billion in annual government implementation support over the next 10 years, with over $1.6 billion needed in annual grants specifically. Current federal funding represents roughly 5% of that need.

This increase in deployed capital was driven by the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), which opened the door for food waste to be included as a component of larger grant programs, combined with growing federal recognition of food waste as a priority issue in its own right.

With the IRA winding down, it is not yet clear whether new federal commitments will emerge to sustain this level of investment. That said, food waste is one of the few issues that transcends political lines—and the current administration has signaled continued support, including through the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s recently launched Feed it Onward initiative.

The groundwork of de-risking solutions, validating models, and building initial infrastructure for food waste solutions creates a real opportunity for capital to step in and scale what the government has started. And just as the clean energy sector required considerable government support and private capital to scale beyond its early days, food waste solutions will need far more funding to realize their full potential.

Philanthropists, impact investors, and corporate capital are needed more than ever to capitalize on the momentum achieved so far, while narrowing the funding gap.

Federal Funding Momentum

Federal funding for food waste grew significantly over the last decade, quadrupling from modest innovation grants in the mid-2010s to sustained infrastructure investment by the early 2020s. Much of this acceleration was driven by the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) and related legislation, representing a unique influx of capital that meaningfully advanced the field.

However, 2025 saw a decline in funding from budget cuts, program reviews, and the cancellation of obligated grants. An analysis from the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) found that roughly half of obligated environmental justice-related IRA funding for organics and infrastructure programs ($125 million of approximately $245 million) was canceled, including projects serving underinvested communities such as Puerto Rico's $20 million investment in composting and wastewater treatment.

While federal investment has declined, it has not come to a halt. Programs such as the USDA's Agriculture and Food Research Initiative (AFRI) remain active, and projects are continuing—among them a $15 million composting infrastructure expansion aimed at reducing landfill reliance. The decade of investment has built real infrastructure and knowledge; the question now is what capital steps in to sustain and build on that momentum.

Where the Money Went—And What It Tells Us

Recycling solutions received a majority (50%) of federal funding dollars over the last 10 years, focused on organics collection and infrastructure build-out. While prevention solutions captured over 38%, general funding for food loss and waste initiatives (i.e., solutions that research waste intervention broadly, grants that target both preventing food waste and diverting organic waste at the same time) received 9%, and food rescue solutions just 4%.

Notable trends in past federal funding included:

• Organics collection was the primary focus of federal funding dollars. Between 2023 and 2025, over 38% of government grant funding was deployed to community composting, centralized composting, anaerobic digestion, and general organics collection programs. This reflected the federal government's role in building the foundational infrastructure that private capital was less likely to fund.

• Prevention and broad food waste solutions gained a larger share of federal funding. Over the last five years, prevention and broad food waste initiatives’ share of funding increased from 20% to approximately 35% of the total. This was a positive trend, as the federal government was committing more resources to addressing food waste at its source rather than only managing its disposal.

• The federal government also positioned itself as a funder of early-stage research. Over the last 10 years, 40% of total direct funding (or $375 million) funded initiatives that included research. While some solutions are deployment-ready, federal agencies recognized knowledge gaps requiring investigation, particularly in food production, storage, and consumer behavior.

• Federal support for food rescue was limited but likely undercounted. Federal agencies appear to have only invested $32 million (or 4%) in food rescue logistics and capacity building. However, funding for food purchases to support food banks (some of which went toward surplus food that would have otherwise gone to waste) was not included in this analysis, making the true federal support for food rescue likely larger than the figure suggested.

What Funders Can Do

The past decade tells a story of a sector coming of age. Federal engagement with food waste evolved from isolated innovation pilots to large-scale infrastructure investment, building validated models, proven solutions, and a foundation the sector can build on. Philanthropists and impact investors can complement the momentum begun by federal funding by continuing to support market validation and seed infrastructure to create conditions for private capital to drive scale.

Historical federal funding has created four distinct opportunities for funders, depending on their priorities:

• Scale validated solutions – In heavily funded areas like Centralized and Community Composting, federal agencies have partially de-risked approaches and built initial infrastructure. These solutions may now be ready for growth-stage philanthropic capital, impact investment, and traditional infrastructure funding.

• Pioneer new solutions – Where federal agencies have funded research, philanthropic capital and enterprising investors can step in to advance these innovations toward commercialization, at which point traditional financing can take over. Examples include continued research into shelf-life extension, effective storage, supply chain traceability, and biology at the individual crop level, all of which have been recent focus areas of government research funding.

• Fill critical solution gaps – Despite consumer-focused solutions being among the most impactful, federal funding has only indirectly supported initiatives in consumer research or to get households to participate in organics collection. This represents an opportunity for philanthropic and business capital, paired with legislation, to catalyze change. Examples of initiatives include funds to expand national consumer education campaigns, in-school interventions (e.g., share tables, waste audits), and continued education for organics diversion in municipalities.

• Advocate for impactful policy – While private and philanthropic resources are critical, government funding continues to be a key part of the capital stack. Funders should support advocacy to unlock federal resources and support for food waste solutions.

The question is no longer whether to invest in food waste solutions, but where each type of capital can be the most catalytic.

If you are a funder and would like to take action, join ReFED’s Food Waste Funder Circle.

This analysis examines a decade of federal food waste funding (2015-2025), focusing on grants that explicitly and directly target waste reduction. Dollar figures reflect federal obligation amounts—defined as the federal government's financial commitment at the time of award—rather than actual outlays, which represent cash drawn or deployed. The analysis is scoped to prime grants, meaning the first-level obligations flowing directly from federal agencies, and excludes subgrants that are subsequently passed through to other organizations or state agencies. Where prime grants provide funding to states, amounts are still measured at the obligation stage, even when those funds will be deployed as subgrants over multiple years. Canceled grants have been removed from the analysis or adjusted to their outlayed amount.

Many grants analyzed were part of broader climate initiatives where food waste represented only one component; in those cases, this analysis isolates the food waste portion and, where sufficient information was available, adjusts figures to reflect only the funding directed toward food waste solutions.

Without the adjustment to isolate the food waste portion of broad grants, 2025 federal investment would appear closer to $600 million, inflated by approximately $400 million in pollution and climate initiatives not specific to food waste, and the five-year annual average would rise to approximately $220 million. Where the food waste portion could not be isolated, those grants are categorized as Indirect (as defined above) and excluded from this analysis.