Cookies help us run our site more efficiently.

By clicking “Accept”, you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance site navigation, analyze site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts. View our Privacy Policy for more information or to customize your cookie preferences.

How the world wastes hundreds of billions of meals in a year, in three charts

News Feed
Saturday, May 4, 2024

The UN reports that over a trillion dollars worth of food gets thrown out every year worldwide. | Mykola Miakshykov/Ukrinform/Future Publishing via Getty Images Think twice before throwing out your leftovers A billion meals are wasted every single day, according to a recent report from the United Nations. And that’s a conservative estimate. It’s not just food down the drain, but money, too. The 2024 UN Food Waste Index report — which measured food waste at the consumer and retail level across more than 100 countries — found that over a trillion dollars worth of food gets thrown out every year, from households to grocery stores to farms, all across the globe. Such waste takes a significant toll on the environment. The process of producing food — the raising of animals, the land and water use, and the subsequent pollution that goes with it — is horribly intensive on the planet. Food waste squanders those efforts, and then makes it worse: as it rots in landfills, it creates methane, a powerful greenhouse gas. Food waste alone is responsible for an estimated 8 to 10 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions, according to the report. To put that into perspective, if food waste were a country, it would be third in emissions produced, behind only the United States and China. Perhaps the most immediate harm, though, is the more than 780 million people who went hungry around the world in 2022, even as hundreds of billions of meals were wasted that same year. The world has become more efficient at producing a lot of food, so much so that there’s more than enough to go around for everyone. But in 2022, nearly 30 percent of people were moderately or severely food insecure, defined by the Food and Agricultural Organization as lacking regular access to safe and nutritious food. Food waste reduction is “an opportunity to reduce costs and to tackle some of the biggest environmental and social issues of our time: fighting climate change and addressing food insecurity,” the authors of the report write. Food waste might seem like an easy problem to solve — just stop wasting food. But in order to snuff food waste out, individuals, businesses, and policymakers alike will need to make some serious changes — and those changes will look different for each country. Global food waste is not just a consumer-level problem, but also a nasty side effect of inefficient food systems that have environmental and social implications. The UN has the goal of slashing food waste in half by 2030. For that to happen, the authors of the Food Waste Index say there’s one crucial step all countries need to do: data collection. You can’t stop wasting food until you know how much food you’re wasting. How do you measure food waste? According to the report — which was spearheaded by the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) and co-authored by the Waste and Resources Action Programme (WRAP), a UK-based climate organization — households contributed to 60 percent of all food waste generated globally in 2022, compared to nearly 28 percent for food service and a little under 13 percent for retailers. However, it’s important to note that there was a lot more usable data for food waste in households than there was for food service or retail — and that’s especially true for low-income and middle-income countries. The report uses a three-level methodology with each level increasing in accuracy and utility. The first level is an estimate using preexisting food waste data from countries. For countries that haven’t yet started collecting data on food waste, UNEP took data from other nearby countries that had similar income levels and then extrapolated that information to create estimates. These figures are a helpful start to understanding the scale at which food waste may exist in a country, but the report emphasizes that most of the Level 1 estimates are not accurate enough to use beyond that. To clarify which estimates can be used for understanding the scale of a problem and which can be used beyond that, the report also assigned a “confidence” rating to each Level 1 estimate — high, medium, low, very low, or no rating. Only 11 countries were assigned a high confidence rating for household food waste estimates. Of these, Saudi Arabia had the highest amount of household food waste per person annually, at a little over 231 pounds per person. Bhutan had the lowest, at just under 42 pounds per person. The next two levels of the methodology lay out a framework in which countries can track their food waste generation. Level 2 is the recommended, baseline approach for countries and requires an actual measurement, rather than just an estimate, of food waste that is suitable for tracking food waste at a national level. Level 3 goes beyond that and gives guidances for how countries can include additional helpful data, like where wasted food goes, how much of food waste is edible, and food loss from manufacturing. While some organizations and institutions define food waste as edible food mass, the report includes both the edible and inedible parts of food. That may make it seem as if the estimations are inflated, but what’s considered edible and inedible can differ from culture to culture — think peels of fruits, or certain parts of animal meat. They also acknowledge that it’s difficult to measure edible food waste without also measuring the inedible parts, and most countries haven’t done so. Notably, the report only includes what gets thrown out at the household, retail, and food service level. That means that the Food Waste Index does not measure “food loss,” which is what gets lost in the production part of the process at farms and factories, as well as in transportation. According to the FAO, an estimated 13 percent of the world’s food is lost in the supply chain prior to hitting shelves. Why does food get wasted? The report also found that on average, household food waste in high-income, upper-middle income, and lower-income countries didn’t differ too much, but the reasons why waste happens will differ across these groups. Variables like access to electricity and refrigeration, dietary habits and behaviors, food distribution infrastructure, country temperature and so forth can all contribute to a country’s food waste levels. While there didn’t seem to be a relationship between a country’s income grouping and household food waste levels, a household’s income within that country — along with other factors — could play a part in their food waste habits. “Just as we expect the reasons for waste to vary between countries, we expect it to vary between households within the same country,” said Hamish Forbes, a senior analyst at WRAP and one of the authors of the 2024 Food Waste Index, via email. “Factors such as kitchen infrastructure, cooking skills/knowledge, cultural norms, time availability, disposable income and so on are all likely to play a role.” In the United States, the Food Waste Index found that food waste is happening mostly at the household and food service level. If we want to get those numbers down, it’s going to take every participant in our food system — from consumers all the way to big businesses and retailers. How can we stop wasting food? It would be reductive to leave the burden of solving food waste and loss to everyday people, when the problem requires solutions across industries, food sectors, governance, and consumers. “The problem is everywhere and requires solutions everywhere,” the report authors write. As of 2022, only 21 countries had made commitments to reducing food waste or food loss as a part of their Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), the goals to reduce emissions and adapt to climate change as a part of the Paris Agreement. But out of those 21, only two countries had submitted NDCs to tackle both food waste and food loss, according to a report by WRAP. Those two countries were Jordan and Namibia, according to Forbes. Commitments are a great first step, but what comes next? “There’s a well-known saying that ‘what gets measured gets managed’ and this is very evident in the food loss and waste space,” said Forbes. He added that measurement can show the true scale of our food wastage across different sectors, and in turn, it can also help policymakers identify solutions and where to implement them. “Beyond just measuring the total amount of food waste, measurements in countries, cities or even businesses can identify ‘hotspots’,” Forbes told me. “For example, if I measure food waste in my restaurant and see from that data that most diners are leaving some of their potato fries, then I’m probably serving too much and I can reduce that wastage.” One country that’s made progress is the United Kingdom. In 2005, the UK established the Courtauld Commitment, a series of voluntary agreements between the governments, organizations, and businesses within the UK to reduce food waste and greenhouse gas emissions, as well as improve water management. The food waste reduction policies from these agreements work on all parts of the food system: supporting waste management on farms, giving guidance to food service and retail sectors on food redistribution, implementing consumer campaigns, and more. As a result, the UK has reduced per capita food waste by 23 percent in total from 2007 to 2018. Dana Gunders, the executive director of the US-based food waste reduction nonprofit ReFED, told me that in the US, there are a few ways our government can change the consumer environment so that people waste less food. One solution is passing the Food Date Labeling Act. You’ve probably found yourself squinting at a carton of eggs that’s been in your fridge for an unknown amount of time, scouring for the “sell by,” “use by,” or “best by” date and debating how safe it is to consume. As of now, the US doesn’t have a standardized labeling process for food, which has translated into consumer confusion around food quality that leads to throwing out meals that are perfectly safe to eat. Creating a standardized label system with clearer phrasing could help consumers make better choices around food usage. Then there’s Gunder’s big legislative wish: a ban on sending food to landfills, a policy that’s in the jurisdiction of states. According to ReFED, some states and municipalities have enacted policies around limiting, diverting, or banning organic material like food from entering landfills. Gunders also wants to see food service sectors and retailers like grocery stores track their food waste — again, better collection of data helps craft better solutions. She also thinks grocery stores could improve their food donation system. There are some up-and-coming intermediaries, like Too Good To Go, which connects donations from grocery stores and restaurants with consumers. But having a more robust policy that isn’t opt-in can help redistribute perfectly edible food and make sure it doesn’t go to waste. “All companies should have a solid donation policy that is across all of their locations, across all product types,” Gunders said. “Sometimes you have grocers who are great at donating bread, but they really don’t donate milk or dairy or meat or seafood. And so there are ways to do that, and some of the grocers who are best at donating are doing that.” Of course, consumers themselves play a role. Planning meals and being more careful around purchasing food, preserving food in freezers, finding ways to take leftover ingredients and making them into a meal — all are ways individuals can personally reduce their food waste. As for food waste and hunger, the report states that “reducing food waste can increase food availability for those who need it.” Forbes told me that how food loss and waste relates to hunger will depend on the sector we’re focusing on. It’ll take a lot more than simply slashing food waste to fix hunger — which is ultimately a symptom of poverty — but reducing food waste by diverting perfectly edible foods to those who need it can certainly help.

A picture of discarded tangerines in a landfill in Dnipro, Ukraine.
The UN reports that over a trillion dollars worth of food gets thrown out every year worldwide. | Mykola Miakshykov/Ukrinform/Future Publishing via Getty Images

Think twice before throwing out your leftovers

A billion meals are wasted every single day, according to a recent report from the United Nations. And that’s a conservative estimate.

It’s not just food down the drain, but money, too. The 2024 UN Food Waste Index report — which measured food waste at the consumer and retail level across more than 100 countries — found that over a trillion dollars worth of food gets thrown out every year, from households to grocery stores to farms, all across the globe.

Such waste takes a significant toll on the environment. The process of producing food — the raising of animals, the land and water use, and the subsequent pollution that goes with it — is horribly intensive on the planet. Food waste squanders those efforts, and then makes it worse: as it rots in landfills, it creates methane, a powerful greenhouse gas. Food waste alone is responsible for an estimated 8 to 10 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions, according to the report. To put that into perspective, if food waste were a country, it would be third in emissions produced, behind only the United States and China.

Perhaps the most immediate harm, though, is the more than 780 million people who went hungry around the world in 2022, even as hundreds of billions of meals were wasted that same year. The world has become more efficient at producing a lot of food, so much so that there’s more than enough to go around for everyone. But in 2022, nearly 30 percent of people were moderately or severely food insecure, defined by the Food and Agricultural Organization as lacking regular access to safe and nutritious food.

Food waste reduction is “an opportunity to reduce costs and to tackle some of the biggest environmental and social issues of our time: fighting climate change and addressing food insecurity,” the authors of the report write.

Food waste might seem like an easy problem to solve — just stop wasting food. But in order to snuff food waste out, individuals, businesses, and policymakers alike will need to make some serious changes — and those changes will look different for each country. Global food waste is not just a consumer-level problem, but also a nasty side effect of inefficient food systems that have environmental and social implications.

The UN has the goal of slashing food waste in half by 2030. For that to happen, the authors of the Food Waste Index say there’s one crucial step all countries need to do: data collection. You can’t stop wasting food until you know how much food you’re wasting.

How do you measure food waste?

According to the report — which was spearheaded by the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) and co-authored by the Waste and Resources Action Programme (WRAP), a UK-based climate organization — households contributed to 60 percent of all food waste generated globally in 2022, compared to nearly 28 percent for food service and a little under 13 percent for retailers. However, it’s important to note that there was a lot more usable data for food waste in households than there was for food service or retail — and that’s especially true for low-income and middle-income countries.

The report uses a three-level methodology with each level increasing in accuracy and utility. The first level is an estimate using preexisting food waste data from countries. For countries that haven’t yet started collecting data on food waste, UNEP took data from other nearby countries that had similar income levels and then extrapolated that information to create estimates. These figures are a helpful start to understanding the scale at which food waste may exist in a country, but the report emphasizes that most of the Level 1 estimates are not accurate enough to use beyond that.

To clarify which estimates can be used for understanding the scale of a problem and which can be used beyond that, the report also assigned a “confidence” rating to each Level 1 estimate — high, medium, low, very low, or no rating. Only 11 countries were assigned a high confidence rating for household food waste estimates. Of these, Saudi Arabia had the highest amount of household food waste per person annually, at a little over 231 pounds per person. Bhutan had the lowest, at just under 42 pounds per person.

A bar graph titled “Household food waste per person, around the world”. Below the title, it says “Saudi Arabia has the highest waste rate and Bhutan the lowest among the 11 countries deemed by researchers to have strong household data on food waste.” The eleven countries are, in order from most waste to least waste, Saudi Arabia, Australia, Qatar, Jamaica, Ghana, Canada, United Kingdom, United States, New Zealand, Japan, and Bhutan.

The next two levels of the methodology lay out a framework in which countries can track their food waste generation. Level 2 is the recommended, baseline approach for countries and requires an actual measurement, rather than just an estimate, of food waste that is suitable for tracking food waste at a national level. Level 3 goes beyond that and gives guidances for how countries can include additional helpful data, like where wasted food goes, how much of food waste is edible, and food loss from manufacturing.

While some organizations and institutions define food waste as edible food mass, the report includes both the edible and inedible parts of food. That may make it seem as if the estimations are inflated, but what’s considered edible and inedible can differ from culture to culture — think peels of fruits, or certain parts of animal meat. They also acknowledge that it’s difficult to measure edible food waste without also measuring the inedible parts, and most countries haven’t done so.

Notably, the report only includes what gets thrown out at the household, retail, and food service level. That means that the Food Waste Index does not measure “food loss,” which is what gets lost in the production part of the process at farms and factories, as well as in transportation. According to the FAO, an estimated 13 percent of the world’s food is lost in the supply chain prior to hitting shelves.

Why does food get wasted?

The report also found that on average, household food waste in high-income, upper-middle income, and lower-income countries didn’t differ too much, but the reasons why waste happens will differ across these groups. Variables like access to electricity and refrigeration, dietary habits and behaviors, food distribution infrastructure, country temperature and so forth can all contribute to a country’s food waste levels.

Bar graph titled “How much food people waste at home in six major regions of the world”. It also says “Humans waste a lot of food but often for different reasons. In low-income countries, insufficient refrigeration can drive waste, whereas people in high-income countries tend to be less concerned with waste and resource use.” From most waste to least, the regions are Latin America/the Caribbean, Sub-Saharan Africa, Western Europe, Northern America, Eastern/Southeastern Asia, and Eastern Europe.

While there didn’t seem to be a relationship between a country’s income grouping and household food waste levels, a household’s income within that country — along with other factors — could play a part in their food waste habits.

“Just as we expect the reasons for waste to vary between countries, we expect it to vary between households within the same country,” said Hamish Forbes, a senior analyst at WRAP and one of the authors of the 2024 Food Waste Index, via email. “Factors such as kitchen infrastructure, cooking skills/knowledge, cultural norms, time availability, disposable income and so on are all likely to play a role.”

In the United States, the Food Waste Index found that food waste is happening mostly at the household and food service level. If we want to get those numbers down, it’s going to take every participant in our food system — from consumers all the way to big businesses and retailers.

A pie chart titled “Where food gets wasted in the United States.” Below the title it says “Most consumer-level food waste occurs in the home or in foodservice.” Figures represent annual food waste per person. Homes waste is 160.9 pounds, food service wastes 163.1 pounds, and retail is 26.5 pounds.

How can we stop wasting food?

It would be reductive to leave the burden of solving food waste and loss to everyday people, when the problem requires solutions across industries, food sectors, governance, and consumers. “The problem is everywhere and requires solutions everywhere,” the report authors write.

As of 2022, only 21 countries had made commitments to reducing food waste or food loss as a part of their Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), the goals to reduce emissions and adapt to climate change as a part of the Paris Agreement. But out of those 21, only two countries had submitted NDCs to tackle both food waste and food loss, according to a report by WRAP. Those two countries were Jordan and Namibia, according to Forbes.

Commitments are a great first step, but what comes next? “There’s a well-known saying that ‘what gets measured gets managed’ and this is very evident in the food loss and waste space,” said Forbes. He added that measurement can show the true scale of our food wastage across different sectors, and in turn, it can also help policymakers identify solutions and where to implement them.

“Beyond just measuring the total amount of food waste, measurements in countries, cities or even businesses can identify ‘hotspots’,” Forbes told me. “For example, if I measure food waste in my restaurant and see from that data that most diners are leaving some of their potato fries, then I’m probably serving too much and I can reduce that wastage.”

One country that’s made progress is the United Kingdom. In 2005, the UK established the Courtauld Commitment, a series of voluntary agreements between the governments, organizations, and businesses within the UK to reduce food waste and greenhouse gas emissions, as well as improve water management. The food waste reduction policies from these agreements work on all parts of the food system: supporting waste management on farms, giving guidance to food service and retail sectors on food redistribution, implementing consumer campaigns, and more. As a result, the UK has reduced per capita food waste by 23 percent in total from 2007 to 2018.

Dana Gunders, the executive director of the US-based food waste reduction nonprofit ReFED, told me that in the US, there are a few ways our government can change the consumer environment so that people waste less food.

One solution is passing the Food Date Labeling Act. You’ve probably found yourself squinting at a carton of eggs that’s been in your fridge for an unknown amount of time, scouring for the “sell by,” “use by,” or “best by” date and debating how safe it is to consume. As of now, the US doesn’t have a standardized labeling process for food, which has translated into consumer confusion around food quality that leads to throwing out meals that are perfectly safe to eat. Creating a standardized label system with clearer phrasing could help consumers make better choices around food usage.

Then there’s Gunder’s big legislative wish: a ban on sending food to landfills, a policy that’s in the jurisdiction of states. According to ReFED, some states and municipalities have enacted policies around limiting, diverting, or banning organic material like food from entering landfills.

Gunders also wants to see food service sectors and retailers like grocery stores track their food waste — again, better collection of data helps craft better solutions. She also thinks grocery stores could improve their food donation system. There are some up-and-coming intermediaries, like Too Good To Go, which connects donations from grocery stores and restaurants with consumers. But having a more robust policy that isn’t opt-in can help redistribute perfectly edible food and make sure it doesn’t go to waste.

“All companies should have a solid donation policy that is across all of their locations, across all product types,” Gunders said. “Sometimes you have grocers who are great at donating bread, but they really don’t donate milk or dairy or meat or seafood. And so there are ways to do that, and some of the grocers who are best at donating are doing that.”

Of course, consumers themselves play a role. Planning meals and being more careful around purchasing food, preserving food in freezers, finding ways to take leftover ingredients and making them into a meal — all are ways individuals can personally reduce their food waste.

As for food waste and hunger, the report states that “reducing food waste can increase food availability for those who need it.” Forbes told me that how food loss and waste relates to hunger will depend on the sector we’re focusing on. It’ll take a lot more than simply slashing food waste to fix hunger — which is ultimately a symptom of poverty — but reducing food waste by diverting perfectly edible foods to those who need it can certainly help.

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

Demolition of Homes Built on a New Orleans Toxic Waste Site Begins

Demolition of abandoned homes constructed on a toxic waste site has begun in New Orleans

NEW ORLEANS (AP) — Demolition of abandoned homes constructed on a toxic waste site began Wednesday in New Orleans, where Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Michael Regan joined local officials touting plans to replace the homes with a solar energy farm.Homes in the area known as Gordon Plaza were built in the 1970s and 1980s and marketed to Black people and low- and middle-income residents who weren’t told that the site was a one-time landfill. As awareness grew and environmentalists raised concerns, the area was named a federal Superfund cleanup site in 1994. Amid reports that the soil was contaminated with lead and carcinogens, including arsenic, residents began a decades-long effort to be relocated at government expense. The city set aside $35 million in 2022 to pay for buyouts of residents’ homes.Shortly before excavators began tearing into the first house, Regan commended Mayor LaToya Cantrell, U.S. Rep. Troy Carter, City Council members and activists who worked to bring about the buyouts.Regan said the moment was “bittersweet” during a pre-demolition news conference livestreamed by WWL-TV. “After all, this is the demolition of a neighborhood that, despite all of the issues that they face, it holds sentimental value to so many people,” Regan said. “This is where so many people bought their first home after years of work and countless sacrifices.”City Council members Oliver Thomas and Eugene Green said they had family members who had moved into the subdivision with high hopes, only to learn of the environmental dangers. “I’m pleased to be here today in recognition of the families that went through so much for so long," Green said.New Orleans officials say they hope to use power from a solar farm planned for the site to supplement energy sources for the city's street drainage pump system. Copyright 2024 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.Photos You Should See - Sept. 2024

A hazardous waste site becomes ‘San Francisco’s Next Great Park’

After almost 150 years, a piece of San Francisco’s last remaining natural shoreline in Bayview-Hunters Point is now accessible to the public. First, it had to be cleaned up. The post A hazardous waste site becomes ‘San Francisco’s Next Great Park’ appeared first on Bay Nature.

Since he moved to Bayview at five years old, Darryl Watkins wondered why a neglected lot, called 900 Innes, was closed off. He often played basketball at India Basin Shoreline Park next to the yard sloping into the Bay, and peeked through the fence to find dirt, trash, neglected buildings, and a dilapidated cottage that housed shipbuilders over a century ago. It was in such disrepair that Watkins never imagined it could be a park. The parks he liked had clean bathrooms, trees, and nature—things found outside of his community. Over $200 million and four years of remediation and construction later, the fences enclosing the yard finally opened on October 19. It’s the first time residents will be able to step foot on the completely transformed property, with two new piers, a floating dock, a food pavilion, and access to some of San Francisco’s last remaining natural shoreline. The 900 Innes opening marks the completion of the second phase of a three-part plan that combines the existing India Basin Shoreline Park and 900 Innes property into one 10-acre waterfront park, while closing a major gap on the 13-mile San Francisco Blue Greenway-Bay Trail.  The 900 Innes Waterfront Park unveiling on October 19; section of the San Francisco Blue Greenway-Bay Trail; Mayor London Breed cutting the ribbon on opening day (Photos by Jillian Magtoto) The San Francisco Recreation and Parks Department (RPD)  is calling it “San Francisco’s Next Great Park” that will bring the city’s southern waterfront up to par with iconic public spaces such as Crissy Field, Washington Square Park, and Golden Gate Park. Beyond the flashy claims, the RPD wants the park to benefit local residents long burdened by a history of industrial pollution. “It’s southeast communities where the city has put all of its crap. We put our water treatment plants, we put our power plants, we put everything that no one else wanted in the city,” says David Froehlich, the RPD project manager of remediation for all three India Basin Park projects. “Whether we built a park here or not, we always promise the community that we would leave this site cleaner than it was when we purchased it.” Some Bayview-Hunters Point locals aren’t convinced RPD has done enough, while others are hopeful the park was indeed adequately remediated. “It’s been a long time coming,” says Jill Fox, who has lived across the street from 900 Innes Ave for over 30 years. “Our fingers are crossed that it will be a good thing for our community.” The old shipyard at 900 Innes Ave along San Francisco’s India Basin has long worn the past of industrial boating. The blacksmith shop, boatyard office, and tool shed had partially or almost completely collapsed. Old overhead power lines sparked and caught on fire, according to residents. The ground was blanketed with concrete, brick, glass, and wood fragments that thickened up to forty feet down into the water. It was sold to private businesses in 1991 and passed between different owners for decades, serving various roles as a homeless encampment, illegal drug lab, and construction storage yard. It remained undeveloped and inaccessible to the public until community members advocated for the property to be acquired by the RPD in 2014. “I always thought 900 Innes would be much better as a respite, a place to be with nature,” says Fox, who participated in the effort towards the lot’s public acquisition. “RPD had the funds and owned properties on either side of it.” A rendition of the India Basin Waterfront Park Project, the combination of the renovated India Basin Shoreline Park and the neighboring 900 Innes property. The result will be a 10-acre waterfront park, planned to be completed in 2026 (left); map of India Basin (right) (Photos courtesy of India Basin Waterfront Park) But the site was far from being a natural respite. Soil samples in 2017 revealed elevated levels of PCBs, petroleum hydrocarbons, and heavy metals from painting, waterproofing, and other boating activities, especially concentrated near boat launch sites. Before it could ever become a place for people, a significant cleanup was in order. “There were a lot of regulatory agencies that were involved,” says Froehlich. “And permits that I wasn’t typically used to.” Local, state, and federal agencies oversaw the remediation, including the Army Corps of Engineers, the Environmental Protection Agency, California State Water Board, and the San Francisco Water Quality Control Board. They monitored the site as the RPD installed a temporary water barrier to push back the Bay water, like the rim of a massive inflatable pool, to remove layers of concrete and up to two feet of contaminated soil. In 2022, the last year of remediation, they discovered the contaminants spread deeper. They found lead, mercury, and PCBs up to seven feet below ground, according to the Remedial Action Plan. “We excavated down to a completely clean site and put clean cover on top of that, using soil from a virgin quarry in the East Bay,” says Froehlich. “So, in theory, it’s a completely clean site.” Water barrier installed during remediation (Photo by San Francisco Recreation and Parks Department)Still, some community advocates remain unsure. “We support a new and improved park in theory, but as long as it can be clean and safe,” says Bradley Angel, the director of Greenaction, a San Francisco-based health and environmental justice nonprofit. The city’s only Superfund site is just a third of a mile southeast from 900 Innes, a former naval laboratory that leaked petroleum, pesticides, and radioactive waste into the ground for 40 years. This contamination remained unknown until 2012, when the Navy discovered that the federally-contracted consulting firm Tetra Tech EC falsified their data. While the Navy allowed Tetra Tech to clear itself in an internal investigation, whistleblowers in 2017 alleged that the Navy mishandled cleanup efforts and covered up the extent of the pollution, in a lawsuit led by Greenaction against the EPA and Navy. Still, the RPD is confident that the former naval site has no effect on 900 Innes. No radioactive chemicals were found, according to RPD communications manager, Daniel Montes. But advocates like Angel haven’t forgotten.  “Greenaction and the community for many years regarding the Hunters Point shipyard Superfund site have called for independent community oversight of all testing and cleanup activities, and that’s fallen on deaf ears,” says Bradley. “Greenaction believes that there needs to be independent retesting of India Basin and the whole shoreline in Bayview, because we do not trust for good reason.” Angel is not just concerned by what might be in the ground at 900 Innes, but also what might be in the air. South of the new park, at 700 Innes, is a planned residential and commercial complex by BUILD LLC, a private developer that agreed to give about six acres of land to the RPD. Originally planned alongside the 900 Innes property, the RPD issued a Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) in 2017 that combined the projected effects of both sites. Still the latest available EIR, it concluded that the joint project “would generate emissions that could expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations significant and unavoidable with mitigation.” Bayview-Hunters Point sees about 97 more annual cases of asthma-related emergency room visits and three more heart attack-related visits per ten thousand people than greater San Francisco. The community is among four neighborhoods in the city with the highest rate of preventable hospitalizations related to air pollution, according to a San Francisco Public Utility Commission 2017 study.  While 700 Innes has been delayed, Angel says once construction begins, the area “won’t be a safe place for some people.” “I can’t comment on the 700 Innes impacts for air quality and what that development would do,” says Froehlich. But noted that with construction complete, now and going forward, 900 Innes park will have a very small impact on air quality. The neighboring 700 Innes site (Photo by Jillian Magtoto) As the RPD moves India Basin past its history of shipping pollution into one of public recreation, a new era of boating emerges. The park opening commenced the arrival of Rocking the Boat—a nonprofit that provides nature and boat education for youth from Hunts Point, New York, with origins similar not just in name. Based in an underserved community in the Bronx, home to aging treatment plants and heavy transportation emissions, the nonprofit was offered an opportunity from the RPD to continue their work at the shop building near the floating docks at 900 Innes, fixing boats and offering rides on the water every Sunday. In March 2025, they will recruit 16 eighth graders from the community to build a 14-foot whitehall from scratch, a type of rowboat that hauled people and small goods in both New York City and San Francisco into the 19th century. Their work will  just involve wood and a little bit of glue,” says Adam Green, who founded Rocking the Boat in 2001. “My hope is that the RPD uses shavings and sawdust we collect for mulch.” The park is newly landscaped with upland sage and native vegetation that run along concrete paths. Mulch and wood chips cover the areas in between. Rocking the Boat employees working at the shop building; Whitehall boats docked at the new floating piers (Photos by Jillian Magtoto) Watkins will work at the park he once thought would never be possible. He will be working at the same Shipwright’s Cottage he saw through the fence not long ago, now a museum, to welcome visitors when they first walk in.  “I think they brought me on to be a connector between the community and the project,” says Watkins. “Having people that really care about this park will help maintain it for years to come.” Darryl Watkins at 900 Innes Ave, just next to Shipwright’s Cottage (Photo by Jillian Magtoto)

The Latinos fighting this CA toxic waste dump

They've been living next to 15 million tons of toxic waste in California's ‘New Appalachia’ for decades. With little government support, the residents are fighting an uphill battle to stop a permit renewal.

This story is part of a series by Reckon and Next City examining how Black and Brown communities across the U.S. are working to hold corporations accountable for environmental injustices. Previously, we covered fights for accountability and reparative work led by the port communities around Alabama’s Africatown and Barrio Logan near San Diego.Two decades ago, a group of children on a class field trip from Kettleman City — a small Latino community nestled between rolling golden hills and vast green agricultural fields in California’s plentiful Central Valley — stood in awe inside the grounds of a local recycling plant.As the kids clawed through the dirt, a man told them curious tales about digging for fossils and quartz and responsibly collecting garbage to save the planet.“It was also exciting for us,” says Brian Cadena, now 23, who recalled answering quiz questions to win toys — tiny treasures for the children of immigrant farmers in one of the nation’s poorest regions. “Our parents didn’t have extra money for stuff like that, so I really liked getting something.”Cadena and his classmates came prepared, shouting out the names of recyclable materials: plastic, cardboard, paper, and tin. The man tossed out key chains, bracelets, stress balls, yo-yos, and pens, all bearing the logo of Waste Management, the nation’s largest landfill operator.Just 3.8 miles from Cadena’s home, Waste Management owns the 1,600-acre Kettleman Hills Facility, a hazardous waste site permitted to hold up to 15 million tons of toxic materials. The landfill is already filled with millions of tons of harmful substances, including mercury, lead, asbestos, and banned PCBs — chemicals known to cause birth defects, developmental delays, and liver damage. Waste Management and its Kettleman Hills Facility did not respond to requests for comment.“It was a whole lot of lies and propaganda,” says Cadena, now a community organizer for the San Francisco-based environmental justice group Greenaction for Health and Environmental Justice. “I had no idea what was in that dirt.”The discovery of Waste Management’s deception soon after it opened in 1979 began a five-decade battle that mirrors environmental resistance nationwide in communities with similar characteristics: non-white, non-English-speaking, high unemployment, high poverty, and often in small and unincorporated areas that leave them without government representatives to champion their cause.“I’ve worked on literally hundreds and hundreds of projects,” Greenaction co-founder Bradley Angel says of his nationwide environmental justice work. “Around 90% of them are incinerators and landfills proposed in poor, rural communities of color with permission from the state.”The latest controversies go back to June 13, 2013, when the landfill’s most recent hazardous waste permit expired. Owing to a quirk in California law, the facility has carried on as normal since.That day is coming soon. The prospect has opened old wounds between environmental advocacy groups, the landfill, state agencies, and the residents of Kettleman City, all of whom played a part in the long and drawn-out permit renewal process.“It’s how the landfill and their friends in the California Department of Toxic Substance Control keep hazardous waste coming in while they work out a way to overcome new state laws and our civil rights agreement,” says Angel, referring to a 2016 landmark civil rights agreement that aimed to reduce pollution, improve health and safety, invest in community resources, enhance regulatory compliance, and increase resident involvement in environmental decision-making.“The whole thing — all the hiding, deception, and lies — never ends.”Kettleman City is unincorporated, meaning it is governed by the county rather than a municipal government that can make decisions based solely on residents’ needs.“The county supervisors here see Kettleman as a forgotten landscape of just simple farmers and farm laborers who don’t deserve the same amenities that the county seat has,” says Miguel Alatorre, a senior community organizer at Greenaction and the third generation of environmentalists in his family to advocate against the landfill. “We have 200 registered voters. Why would anyone pay attention to places like us anywhere in the country?”DTSC published Waste Management’s draft permit renewal in April; a public comment period ended on July 19 before an administrative review. Final approval is expected in March 2025.Despite DTSC claiming that the draft permit offers dozens of new environmental protections, local environmental advocacy groups argue it ignores SB673, a 2015 California environmental justice law promising greater protections to vulnerable communities when considering permit applications from hazardous waste landfills.Under that law, DTSC must weigh cumulative sources of pollution and community vulnerabilities, including poverty, unemployment, linguistic isolation, access to health care, and other health factors such as asthma, cardiovascular illness, and poor birth outcomes.“It’s in black and white that the state must consider every form of pollution being endured by residents,” Angel says. “It simply hasn’t, and you have to ask why not.”The DTSC did not respond to questions about why it allegedly failed to follow state law.Kettleman City ranks in the 92nd percentile for environmental vulnerability, according to California’s Environmental Protection Agency mapping tool, highlighting its disproportionate pollution burden. U.S. Census data shows nearly 30% of its residents live in poverty, more than double the state average of 12%.At the same time, DTSC says that unemployment, which is difficult to gauge in small immigrant farming towns, is higher than 82% of the state. Federal records show that no one in Kettleman City holds a bachelor’s degree, and its population has dropped from 1,245 in 2021 to 660.These challenges mirror those found throughout the Central Valley, often referred to as “New Appalachia” for its deep poverty, reminiscent of the economically distressed mountain region in eastern America. The nearby Latino community of Buttonwillow faces similar struggles as Kettleman City, with a hazardous landfill that’s operated unpermitted for over 18 years.The agency said in April that a permit denial would not likely reduce or eliminate the community’s vulnerabilities, claiming that the landfill’s permitted activities do not endanger human health.The state’s mapping tool shows that threats to residents include high levels of pesticide pollution, poor drinking water, home-based lead, asthma, cardiovascular disease, poverty, unemployment, lack of formal education, and weak protections for groundwater.California’s reputation for environmental justice was created partly by the eco-friendly administration of Gov. Jerry Brown, who in 2015 passed SB673 and required the Department of Toxic Substances Control to fully implement the law by 2018. While DTSC has made some progress, such as reviewing past landfill violations and requiring hazardous waste facilities to self-assess risks, it has yet to establish rules to monitor cumulative pollution effects.Advocates argue this is not the only instance of non-compliance; in 2016, DTSC signed a civil rights agreement to settle a U.S. EPA lawsuit challenging the expansion of Kettleman City’s hazardous waste landfill by 50%.Greenaction and local community group El Pueblo Para el Aire y Agua Limpia filed an administrative civil rights complaint against DTSC. The U.S. EPA accepted the complaint, finding it met many of the agency’s nondiscrimination regulations. The EPA did not rule on the complaint before the parties signed a civil rights agreement in August 2016 after seven months of mediationThe agreement settled the complaint, requiring DTSC to comply with civil rights in its regulatory processes and implement the cumulative pollution element of SB673 no later than Jan. 1, 2018.“This is what they’re dragging their feet on, because they know that if we have those criteria in place, they’re not going to be able to permit the state’s hazardous waste landfills,” said Angel. “It would all fail.”DTSC is informally using CalEnviroScreen, an online mapping tool that combines demographic and pollution data, which can calculate a vulnerability score for any location using cumulative sources of pollution.A 2021 DTSC draft framework of how the law might work notes that a community with scores above the 60th percentile would be considered vulnerable. But DSTC has not yet established an internal policy of what would happen during the permitting process should a community exceed a certain level of vulnerability, according to the agency’s SB673 implementation plan.Kettleman City’s location at the junction of Highway 41 and Interstate 5 — the country’s busiest interstate — brings high pollution levels. Contaminated water is still a problem for the community despite some improvements in recent years. At the same time, hundreds of thousands of acres of agricultural fields have created extreme levels of pesticide pollution. There’s even a human waste compost facility and multiple shipping facilities, like FedEx and UPS.Advocates for Kettleman City have fought for decades to counter environmental threats, using lawsuits and protests to raise awareness and engage state and federal politicians. In 2007-08, 20 children in the area were born with congenital disabilities, including five with cleft lip or palate. Three children died. A state investigation found no clear cause, with a health official calling it a “statistical anomaly.” In 2012, the U.S. EPA dropped a civil rights case related to hazardous waste sites, including the Kettleman Hills Facility, after 17 years.Under Trump, the federal EPA approved Waste Management’s 50% landfill expansion in 2019, frustrating residents like Angel, who see a pattern of neglect across generations.“They are gaslighting us over and over throughout decades,” said Cadena, referring to the contrasting outcomes between Kettleman City residents and KHF. “It’s generational.”There have also been vital victories for residents. Since 2017, community advocates have secured improved air and water monitoring supported by state grants. In 2018, the town’s campaign against diesel emissions saw the state help with educational efforts and “No Diesel Idling.” The biggest victory coming out of the civil rights agreement was convincing the state to replace the town’s aging and unreliable water treatment system and water source.While these concessions are often a good way to compromise, achieving justice through civil rights laws and how they are applied across states and federal agencies can be complex.In preparation for publishing Waste Management’s draft permit, DTSC hired the prominent San Francisco-based environmental protection law firm Altshuler Berzon LLP (where CalEPA’s Deputy Secretary for Law Enforcement and General Counsel Linda Lye, was a partner from 2002 to 2010). The firm’s civil rights report analyzed whether the process and subsequent draft permit decision were consistent with EPA and California civil rights laws.“Altshuler found no direct evidence of discriminatory intent or animus against Latinos or limited English proficiency Spanish-speakers,” noted the October 2023 DTSC report summary. Altshuler also concluded that the impacts of renewing the Kettleman Hills Facility permit would unlikely be adverse enough to be unlawful,” per DTSC. The law firm did not respond to requests for comment.“Those lawyers don’t live here; they don’t see the pollution and the things people have to deal with,” said Angel. “They relied on interviews with DTSC employees and its scientific analyses, which it admitted to not independently verifying.”Angel also said Altshuler did not talk to Kettleman City residents, El Pueblo or Greenaction before completing its report. Altshuler did not respond to questions about its reporting process.The state’s mapping tool shows that threats to residents include high levels of pesticide pollution, poor drinking water, home-based lead, asthma, cardiovascular disease, poverty, unemployment, lack of formal education, and weak protections for groundwater.While Altshuler’s analysis focuses specifically on Kettleman City, a broader inspection of hazardous landfill data in California shows that around 55% of the state’s permitted hazardous waste facilities are in or near disadvantaged communities, according to a 2023 DTSC report. That bears out in independent studies.Decades of research, including the 2021 report Toxic Waste and Race in the Twenty-First Century, has drawn a direct connection between hazardous waste facilities and communities of color. Published in the Journal of Society and Environment, the study notes that over half of the residents living within labor1.86 miles of toxic waste sites in the U.S. are people of color. Supporting this, the Center for Effective Government found that these individuals are nearly twice as likely as white residents to live near industrial facilities’ fenceline zones, which bring increased air pollution, safety hazards, and health risks.Kettleman City’s landfill follows a pattern alarmingly similar to the controversial 1980s Cerrell Report, a government-funded study that advised siting hazardous waste facilities in vulnerable communities to prevent resistance. As Angel observes, this strategy persists today, targeting low-income communities of color and trying to build goodwill in the community.Some residents believe the company even employs locals to push a favorable image of the landfill on social media, suggesting that toxic waste is safe and the landfill is a good neighbor.“That’s the level of infiltration and propaganda they are capable of,” added Alatorre, who has spent most of his life trying to defy Waste Management and the government forces that enable it.While at high school, he and other kids dumped trash in front of U.S. EPA officials at an event. “This is what it’s like to be dumped on,” Alatorre told them then. “The next day during our weekly mile run, my gym teacher taunted me by repeatedly saying ‘si se puede’ as I struggled to keep up.”The phrase — meaning “yes, it can be done”— is the motto of the United Farmers Union. It has also been adopted by other labor unions and civil rights groups and used as a rallying cry at immigration protests.“This is about much more than complicated legal reports, numbers and lawsuits,” Alatorre says. “If we even have one, we can’t let this be our future.”

More consumption, more demand for resources, more waste: why urban mining’s time has come

Urban mining recovers valuable resources from the vast amounts of waste cities produce.

Lynda Disher/ShutterstockPollution and waste, climate change and biodiversity loss are creating a triple planetary crisis. In response, UN Environment Programme executive director Inger Andersen has called for waste to be redefined as a valuable resource instead of a problem. That’s what urban mining does. We commonly think of mining as drilling or digging into the earth to extract precious resources. Urban mining recovers these materials from waste. It can come from buildings, infrastructure and obsolete products. An urban mine, then, is the stock of precious metals or materials in the waste cities produce. In particular, electronic waste, or e‑waste, has higher concentrations of precious metals than many mined ores. Yet the UN Global E‑waste Monitor estimates US$62 billion worth of recoverable resources was discarded as e‑waste in 2022. Urban mining can recover these “hidden” resources in cities around the world. It offers sustainable solutions to the problems of resource scarcity and waste management. And it happens in the very cities that are centres of overconsumption and hotspots for the greenhouse gas emissions driving climate change. What sort of waste can be mined? Materials such as concrete, pipes, bricks, roofing materials, reinforcements and e‑waste can be recovered for reuse. Urban waste can be “mined” for metals such as gold, steel, copper, zinc, aluminium, cobalt and lithium, as well as glass and plastic. Mechanical or chemical treatments are used to retrieve these metals and materials. Simply disposing of this waste has high financial and environmental costs. In Australia, about 10% of waste is hazardous. Landfill costs are soaring as cities run out of space to discard their waste. The extent of this fast-growing problem is driving the growth of urban mining around the world. We are then salvaging materials whose supply is finite, while reducing the impacts of waste disposal. Many plastics can be recycled and turned into new products. MAD.vertise/Shutterstock What’s happening globally? In Europe, the focus is largely on construction and demolition waste. Europe produces 450 million to 500 million tonnes of this waste each year – more than a third of all the region’s waste. Through its urban mining strategy, the European Commission aims to increase the recovery of non-hazardous construction and demolition waste to at least 70% across member countries by 2030. In Asia, urban mining has focused on e‑waste. However, the region recovers only about 12% of its e‑waste stock. Rates of e‑waste recycling vary greatly: 20% for East Asia, 1% for South Asia, and virtually zero for South-East Asia. China, Japan and South Korea are leading the way in Asia. Australia is on the right track. Our recovery rate for construction and demolition materials climbed to 80% by 2022 — the highest among all types of waste streams. However, we recover only about a third of the value of materials in our e-waste. Africa has also recognised the growing value of urban mining resources. Regional initiatives include the Nairobi Declaration on e‑waste, the Durban Declaration on e‑Waste Management in Africa and the Abuja Platform on e‑Waste. Urban mining solves many problems The OECD forecasts that global materials demand will almost double from 89 billion tonnes in 2019 to 167 billion tonnes in 2060. The United Nations’ Global Waste Management Outlook 2024 shows the amount of waste and costs of managing it are soaring too. It’s estimated the world will have 82 million tonnes of e‑waste to deal with by 2030. These trends mean urban mining is becoming ever more relevant and important. Urban mining also helps cut greenhouse gas emissions. Unlocking resources near where they are needed reduces transport costs and emissions. Urban mining also provides resource independence and creates employment. In addition, increasing recovery and recycling rates reduce the pressure on finite natural resources. Urban mining underpins circular economy alternatives such as the “deposit and return” schemes that give people financial incentives to return e‑waste and containers for recycling in cities such as Singapore, Sydney, Darwin and San Francisco. By 2030, San Francisco aims to halve disposal to landfill or incineration and cut solid waste generation by 15%. What more needs to be done? Governments have a role to play by adopting and enforcing policies, laws and regulations that encourage recycling through urban mining instead of sending waste to landfill. European Union laws, for example, mandate increased recycling targets for municipal waste overall and for packaging waste, including 80% for ferrous metals and 60% for aluminium. In Australia, 2019 legislation prohibits landfills from accepting anything with a plug, battery or cord. Anything with a plug is designated as e-waste. Product design is an important consideration. A designer must balance a product’s efficiency with making it easy to recycle. Products with greater efficiency and easy-to-recycle parts are more likely to use less energy, lead to less waste and hence less natural resource extraction. Our urban mining research documents a more sustainable approach to product design. Increasing product stewardship initiatives are expected to encourage better product design and standards that promote reuse and recycling, producer responsibility and changes in consumer behaviour. Good information about the available resources is essential too. The Urban Mine Platform, ProSUM and Waste and Resource Recovery Data Hub collect data on e‑waste, end-of-life vehicles, batteries and building and mining waste. These centralised databases allow easy access to data on the sources, stocks, flows and treatment of waste. Traditional mining is not the only method for extracting raw materials for the green transition. Waste is set to be increasingly recycled, reducing demand for virgin materials. A truly circular economy can become a reality if governments develop and apply an urban mining agenda. Michael Odei Erdiaw-Kwasie receives funding from the Foundation for Rural and Regional Renewal (FRRR). Matthew Abunyewah receives funding from the Foundation for Rural and Regional Renewal (FRRR) and Northern Western Australia and Northern Territory Drought Resilience Adoption and Innovation Hub (Northern Hubb)Patrick Brandful Cobbinah receives funding from Lincoln Institute of Land Policy. He is a member of Planning Institute of Australia.

Suggested Viewing

Join us to forge
a sustainable future

Our team is always growing.
Become a partner, volunteer, sponsor, or intern today.
Let us know how you would like to get involved!

CONTACT US

sign up for our mailing list to stay informed on the latest films and environmental headlines.

Subscribers receive a free day pass for streaming Cinema Verde.
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.