Bill Overview
Title: A bill to amend the Bill Emerson Good Samaritan Food Donation Act to improve the program, and for other purposes.
Description: This act expands liability protections for the donation of food and grocery products. Specifically, the act expands the liability protections to include donations of an apparently fit grocery product or apparently wholesome food for which the recipient is charged a good Samaritan reduced price that is no greater than the cost of handling, administering, harvesting, processing, packaging, transporting, and distributing the food or product; or that is donated directly to a needy individual at zero cost by a retail grocer, wholesaler, agricultural producer, agricultural processor, agricultural distributor, restaurant, caterer, school food authority, or institution of higher education.
Sponsors: Sen. Blumenthal, Richard [D-CT]
Target Audience
Population: People who rely on donated food or experience food insecurity
Estimated Size: 40000000
- The bill is focused on expanding food donation liability protections, which encourages more donations due to reduced legal risks.
- By including food donations that may be sold at cost, the bill is likely to incentivize organizations that have costs associated with handling and distribution to donate more.
- The bill aims to alleviate food insecurity by making it easier and more economical for entities to donate food that would otherwise potentially go to waste.
- The USDA estimated that in 2020, 38.3 million people lived in food-insecure households, which gives a plausible starting point for the potential global population impacted.
- Food donation programs can operate globally and similar protections may inspire international entities to adopt or expand food donation programs based on the success of the US initiative.
Reasoning
- The target population for this policy includes individuals and families who experience food insecurity, which was estimated to be 38.3 million people in the US according to the USDA in 2020.
- This population may include diverse groups, such as low-income families, unemployed individuals, senior citizens on fixed incomes, and others who have difficulty accessing sufficient nutritious food.
- The potential improvements in wellbeing are tied to better consistency in food availability through increased donations, possibly improving emotional, physical, and psychological wellbeing.
- While increased food donations may primarily benefit those directly experiencing food insecurity, there is also a broader indirect impact on entities involved in donations, including a reduction in food waste and potentially lowering operational costs for businesses.
- By introducing safe liability protection, entities might be more inclined to donate quality food they otherwise might discard due to overzealous safety concerns or fear of legal repercussions.
Simulated Interviews
Retail worker (New York, NY)
Age: 35 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 16/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think any program that helps get food to people who need it more easily and with less waste is beneficial.
- As someone who sometimes relies on the food pantry to make ends meet, it would be reassuring to know there might be more fresh options available.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
Chef (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 28 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy could help reduce food wastage, something I am passionate about in my personal and professional life.
- It might enable our restaurant to participate in food donation programs without the fear of legal action if something goes wrong inadvertently.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Social worker (Chicago, IL)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Expanding liability protection is a positive step and will hopefully make it easier for the organizations I work with to get more food to those who need it.
- I've seen a lot of good food go to waste because donors worry about liability. This could help change that.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Farmer (Houston, TX)
Age: 52 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This gives us more freedom to donate what we grow without worrying about lawsuits from honest mistakes.
- Would love to see more grocery stores and restaurants do the same; it aligns well with sustainability goals.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Retired teacher (Miami, FL)
Age: 67 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I struggle to afford groceries often, so more donations would definitely help.
- Being on a fixed income makes it hard when prices go up, but with more donations, it offers some relief.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 4 |
Non-profit manager (Seattle, WA)
Age: 40 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Reducing legal risks helps us focus on getting food out to people rather than worrying about compliance issues.
- I hope this encourages more donors to step up, especially with things like fresh produce.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
College student (Austin, TX)
Age: 22 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Anything that can make food more accessible to students like me is a good thing.
- Between tuition and rent, sometimes groceries fall to the bottom of the list.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
High school student (Philadelphia, PA)
Age: 19 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 17/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I see a lot of kids at school who don't get enough to eat; more programs like this could help.
- If stores can give food they don't sell without worrying about lawsuits, more of us can get enough to eat.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Caterer (Detroit, MI)
Age: 36 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This would allow us to donate leftovers from events without worrying about getting into legal trouble.
- It feels good to give back to the community, and this makes it easier.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Tech industry manager (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 18/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I support policy changes like these as they promote better sustainability and community responsibility.
- By minimizing liability, larger companies might engage in community assistance more actively.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $25000000 (Low: $15000000, High: $35000000)
Year 2: $27000000 (Low: $16000000, High: $38000000)
Year 3: $29000000 (Low: $17000000, High: $41000000)
Year 5: $32000000 (Low: $19000000, High: $45000000)
Year 10: $36000000 (Low: $21000000, High: $50000000)
Year 100: $54000000 (Low: $32000000, High: $75000000)
Key Considerations
- The policy focuses on legal liability loopholes and might need periodic review to address any emerging unintended consequences or legal gaps.
- True cost will highly depend on the effectiveness of the bill in incentivizing food donations among major producers and distributors.
- Collaboration with food charities and non-profit organizations is crucial to accurately gauge cost-savings through reduced food insecurity.
- Joint efforts with local governments and municipalities could optimize costs relating to waste management and other indirect expenses.