Running head: IMPLEMENTING A FOOD RECOVERY PROGRAM

Implementing a Food Recovery Program at the

University of South Dakota

Eric Schlimgen

The University of South Dakota

IMPLEMENTING A FOOD RECOVER PROGRAM ii

Abstract

Food waste and hunger are two problems which can be resolved by one solution; instead of

filling landfills, we should be feeding people. With nearly 50 million (about one in six)

Americans currently experiencing food insecurity—a household-level economic and social

condition of limited or uncertain access to adequate food—a strong moral, economic, and

environmental argument exists for the need to capture and redistribute excess food. This report

offers implementation strategies, as well as the actual implementation of a food recovery

program at the University of South Dakota. First, this report broadly surveys relevant research

on the topic of food recovery and lays the foundation for a guiding framework to draft and

implement a food recovery program. Next, this report suggests and executes an implementation

plan that provides a step-by-step framework for implementing a sustainable, as well as legal food

recovery program. This report outlines the administrative procedures and also follows those

procedures for implementation of a food recovery program at the University of South Dakota.

The goal of this research is to aid the University of South Dakota in implementing a sustainable

student driven food recovery program that decreases food waste and increases the number of

food insecure individuals reached in the Vermillion community.

Keywords: food insecurity, food recovery, implementation, policy, university.

IMPLEMENTING A FOOD RECOVER PROGRAM iiiProfessional résumé

Eric M. Schlimgen716 East Clark Street Telephone: 605-391-9450 Vermillion, SD 57069 Eric.Schlimgen@gmail.com

Attributes:

◊ Productive and Hard-Working◊ Zealous ◊ Open-Minded

◊ Critical Analyzer ◊ Alternative Solution Oriented ◊ Empathetic and Positive

Education: ◊ Juris Doctorate, University of South Dakota School of Law, Vermillion, SD, 2016.◊ Master of Public Administration, University of South Dakota, Vermillion, SD, 2016.◊ Bachelor of Arts, University of South Dakota, Vermillion SD, 2013. Double major in

Criminal Justice and Political Science.

Employment:South Dakota Fourth Judicial Circuit Court Clerkship (2016-2017)◊ Year-long Clerkship with the Judges of the Fourth Circuit. Position includes researching

case law, statutes, jury instructions for the Circuit and Magistrate Judges as well as observing trials.

Bangs McCullen Law Firm, Rapid City, SD, Summer Associate (Summer 2015) ◊ Position included preparing memorandums, legal research, brief writing, arguing motions,

meeting with clients, observing interviews, depositions and other assigned tasks. University of South Dakota Academic & Career Planning Center; Graduate Assistantship (2013-2014 Academic year) ◊ Position included co-leading training workshops for Supplemental Instruction Leaders and

Tutors as well as on-going group training, coordinating events and organizing data. University of South Dakota Academic & Career Planning Center; Supplemental Instructor Introduction to Criminal Justice (2012-2013 Academic year)◊ Facilitator of tri-weekly peer-to-peer learning sessions focusing on skills fundamental to

success within the major as well as student’s collegiate careers.

Internships: Federal Public Defender District of South Dakota; Rapid City, SD (Summer 2011)◊ Internship included drafting appellant arguments, memorandums of trial transcripts,

reviewing sentencing guidelines, research on open cases, field work including interviews with investigators and shadowing of trial attorneys.

Honorable U.S. Senator John R. Thune (R-SD); Washington D.C. (Spring semester 2011) ◊ Internship consisted of correspondence work, constituent Capitol tours, memorandums for

staff, phone reception, attending conferences, data entry and demonstrating a superb knowledge of current political issues.

IMPLEMENTING A FOOD RECOVER PROGRAM iv

Honors & Awards:◊ Costello Porter Annual Trust & Wills/Estate Planning Essay Winner (2015)◊ Omicron Delta Kappa Honor Society, University of South Dakota Circle (2013)◊ Who’s Who Amongst American Colleges and Universities (2013)◊ Criminal Justice Faculty Appreciation Award (2013) ◊ University of South Dakota Outstanding Student Leadership Award (2013)◊ Oneta H. Card Government Cooperation Scholarship (2012)◊ University of South Dakota Mock Trial Advocate Award (2012)◊ Mary B. Elden Internship Award (2011)

Service/Leadership: University of South Dakota School of Law Moot Court Board (2014-2016)

◊ American Bar Association Moot Court Tournament, Philadelphia Pennsylvania. ◊ New York City Bar Association’s National Moot Court Competition, Region 14. ◊ Pace Law School, Jeffrey G. Miller Pace National Environmental Law Competition.◊ University of San Diego School of Law, National Criminal Procedure Tournament.

South Dakota Commission for National and Community Service (2011-2015) ◊ Governor Daugaard appointment to allocate federal funds to nonprofits and encourages a

strong service ethic in all citizens to further strengthen the state’s nonprofit sector.USD Law Trial Team (2016)

◊ George Washington Law & Estrella Law Firm Trial Advocacy Competition, Puerto Rico.USD School of Law Environmental Law Society (2013-2015)

◊ Vice-President Women In Law (2013-2015)

◊ The organization increases awareness of issues women face in the practice of law.AWOL—Alternative Week of Off Campus Learning (2009-2013)

◊ Student led service-learning organization that facilitated Spring/Winter Break trips focusing on a variety of social and environmental issues emphasizing the importance of community interaction, reflection and active citizenship.

◊ President of the Executive Board. (2011-2013)◊ Recipient of Board of Regents Community Service Organization Award. (2012)◊ AmeriCorps Colorado Campus Compact member. (2011-2012)◊ Site Leader-Urban poverty affordable housing immersion trip, Minneapolis, MN.◊ Site Leader-Rural poverty service trip to Eagan, TN. (2011) ◊ Service volunteer on Pine Ridge Indian Reservation, SD. (2010)

Break Away: Alternative Break Citizenship School; Restoring Ecosystems in our National Lands (July 2011)

◊ Site Leader for national training session focusing on fundamentals of Alternative Break trips and service eliminating invasive plant life in Arizona’s National Parks.

IMPLEMENTING A FOOD RECOVER PROGRAM vTable of ContentsAbstract............................................................................................................................................ii

Professional résumé........................................................................................................................iii

Chapter I..........................................................................................................................................7

Introduction..................................................................................................................................7

Problem Statement...................................................................................................................7

Public Interest...........................................................................................................................8

Organizational Settings..........................................................................................................10

Challenges and Benefits.........................................................................................................13

Chapter II.......................................................................................................................................14

Introduction................................................................................................................................14

Solutions.................................................................................................................................15

Law Reviews..........................................................................................................................16

Smart Practices.......................................................................................................................20

Guiding Framework...............................................................................................................22

Chapter III......................................................................................................................................23

Summary of Recommendations.................................................................................................23

Action Steps and Timeline for Implementation—Gantt chart...................................................24

Communication and Leadership Strategy..................................................................................27

Organizational (Re)Design Issues..............................................................................................28

Personnel Issues.........................................................................................................................29

Budget........................................................................................................................................31

Constitutional and Legal Considerations...................................................................................33

Good Samaritan Food Donation Laws...................................................................................33

South Dakota Food Donor Protections...................................................................................33

Bill Emerson Good Samaritan Food Donation Act................................................................35

Preemption..............................................................................................................................38

Ethical Considerations...............................................................................................................39

The encouragement of a food recovery system relieves the government of its obligation to care for the poor.....................................................................................................................39

The danger of donating food outweighs the benefits of donating..........................................40

Assessment Methodology..........................................................................................................41

IMPLEMENTING A FOOD RECOVER PROGRAM viDecision-making Tools/Strategies.............................................................................................42

Organizational Policy Process...................................................................................................44

Chapter IV.....................................................................................................................................45

Conclusions................................................................................................................................45

References......................................................................................................................................48

Appendix A....................................................................................................................................52

Appendix B....................................................................................................................................53

Appendix C....................................................................................................................................54

IMPLEMENTING A FOOD RECOVER PROGRAM viiChapter I.

Introduction

Some 795 million people in the world do not have enough food to lead a healthy active

life; that's about one in nine people (United Nations World Food Programme, 2015). The World

Food Summit of 1996 defined food security as “when all people at all times have access to

sufficient, safe, nutritious food to maintain a healthy and active life” (World Health

Organization, 2012). By contrasts, food-insecurity—the condition assessed in the food security

survey and represented in United States Department of Agriculture (“USDA”) food security

reports as a household-level economic and social condition of limited or uncertain access to

adequate food—is a global problem with local ramifications (Coleman-Jensen, 2015). Hunger is

an individual-level physiological condition that may result from food insecurity (Coleman-

Jensen, 2015). Re-purposing food which is traditionally disposed of by an organization and

gifting that food to a non-profit will aid in alleviating food-insecurity as well as food waste.

Problem Statement.

The Vermillion Welcome Table (“VWT”) a nonprofit 501(c)(3) is part of the umbrella

organization, Feeding Vermillion (“FV”) in Vermillion, South Dakota (Feeding Vermillion,

2014). The VWT serves 150 to 175 people weekly, the Vermillion Weekend Backpack Program

(“VWBP”) serves 205 kids weekly, and the Vermillion Food Pantry (“VFP”) fed 5,373 people in

Clay County in 2013 and 5,874 people in 2014 (Feeding Vermillion, 2014).

The multiple convenience stores on the University of South Dakota (“USD”) campus

(Retail Marketplace, Einstein Bros Bagels, University Brew, Coyote Village POD, MUC C-

Store, and Beede Bump) each Sunday night dispose of their non-spoiled baked goods (USD

Dining, 2016). The problem is the missing link between USD food entities which waste the

baked goods and delivery to FV to repurpose the food to serve as an in-kind donation, in

IMPLEMENTING A FOOD RECOVER PROGRAM viiiadditional to the Monday night meals—eliminating waste while simultaneously combating food-

insecurity. While the idea is simple in conception and logistically—as the food will physically

only travel three blocks down Dakota Street—problems such as longevity, ethical concerns about

the repurposing of the food, contractual/legal barriers, and leadership on both sides of the

agreement pose potential barriers to implementation.

Public Interest.

The interest in food-security encompasses global, national and local administrations. On

the global level, the United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon introduced 17 Sustainable

Development Goals (“SDGs”) for the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development—adopted by

world leaders in September, 2015 at a historic UN Summit (United Nations, 2016). While the

SDGs are not legally binding, governments are expected to take ownership and establish national

frameworks for the achievement of the 17 Goals (UN, 2016). Most relevant here are goal 2 and

goal 12.

Goal 2: End hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition and promote

sustainable agriculture is directly related to Goal 12: Reduce Consumption and Production (UN,

2016). Goal 12; Sustainable consumption and production  aims at “doing more and better with

less,” increasing net welfare gains from economic activities by reducing resource use,

degradation and pollution along the whole lifecycle, while increasing quality of life (UN, 2016).

This goal involves different stakeholders, including businesses, consumers, policy makers,

researchers, scientists, retailers, media, and development cooperation agencies, among others

(UN, 2016). Quantifiably, Goal 12 intends by 2030, to halve per capita global food waste at the

retail and consumer levels and reduce food losses along production and supply chains, including

post-harvest losses (UN, 2016). Goal 2 intends by 2030, to end hunger and ensure access by all

IMPLEMENTING A FOOD RECOVER PROGRAM ixpeople, in particular the poor and people in vulnerable situations, including infants, to safe,

nutritious and sufficient food all year round (UN, 2016).

In the United States, 48.1 million individuals lived in food-insecure households,

including 32.8 million adults and 15.3 million children (Feeding America, 2016). In Clay

County, South Dakota, a population of 13,953, some 2,190 individuals (15.7% of the population)

is food-insecure (Feeding South Dakota, 2016). In 2015, two federal agencies—USDA and the

Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”)—called for a 50% reduction in food waste in the

United States by 2030 and announced a partnership with charities and private sector

organizations to cut waste (Worland, 2015). The average American household of four wastes

more than two million calories of food with a value of nearly $1,500 each year (Worland, 2015).

In total, nearly a third of the food supply goes to waste (70 billion pounds); paradoxically, nearly

50 million Americans live in food insecure households (Worland, 2015; Feeding America,

2014). To reconcile the paradox, EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy in a press release stated,

“[l]et’s feed people, not landfills” (Worland, 2015).

On March 8, 2016, ReFED—collectively 30 organizations including the Natural

Resources Defense Council (“NRDC”), Deloitte and investment firm MissionPoint Partners—

offered a roadmap for the United States to reduce food waste by 20% within a decade while

creating thousands of jobs which could save consumers billions (ReFED, 2016; Worland, 2016).

The report divides food waste solutions into three categories: prevention, recovery and recycling

(ReFED, 2016). The report focuses on recovery solutions; a new method of taking food that

would otherwise be thrown away and using it for purposes before it goes bad (ReFED, 2016).

ReFED (2016) offers a new path to enable the EPA and USDA to meet their goal of reducing

food waste by 50% in 2030 (Worland, 2016).

IMPLEMENTING A FOOD RECOVER PROGRAM xAt the community, as well as campus level, the University of South Dakota now offers a

B.A as well as B.S. in Sustainability (USD, 2016). The Sustainability program provides training

in how to understand and address complex, interdisciplinary problems and work with people

from a variety of backgrounds (USD, 2016). Faculty members actively conduct research on a

range of environmental, social and economic issues (USD, 2016). While USD has made a

commitment to sustainability, in 2011 The College Sustainability Report Card (“CSRC”) graded

USD overall at a “C” level (The College Sustainability Report Card, 2011). Most notable for

purposes of this report, USD received a “C” for food and recycling; although, the study noted:

USD purchases locally processed dairy products; buys seafood according to sustainability

guidelines; exclusively serves fair trade coffee and tea; and offered discounts for reusable mugs

(CSRC, 2011). The College Sustainability Report Card graded USD at a “C” for investment

priorities and an “F” for shareholder engagement (CSRC, 2011). Globally, nationally, within

South Dakota, and especially at the Vermillion/USD level the community has demonstrated an

interest in improving sustainability and reducing the number of food-insecure families.

Organizational Settings.

Aside from the governmental efforts to combat food-insecurity numerous organizations

all share the common initiative of ending food-insecurity. The Vermillion Welcome Table—the

501(C)(3) nonprofit within the collective Feeding Vermilion name— founded in 2001, provides

an inviting communal place where individuals join together to share food, fellowship, service,

and a sense of community (Feeding Vermillion, 2016; Struck, 2010). The idea of the VWT

stemmed from a passions retreat held at the United Methodist Church (“UMC”) in Vermillion,

South Dakota in the Fall of 2000 (Struck, 2010). One of the church members, John Lushbough,

began to think about creating a similar program in Vermillion (Struck, 2010).

IMPLEMENTING A FOOD RECOVER PROGRAM xiFrom the beginning, the two main purposes of the VWT were to serve a meal and to

provide radical inclusiveness (Struck, 2010). Although serving a meal was important, as long as

there was food, everyone involved could collaborate to create a sense of community (Struck,

2010). Volunteers strived to create a welcoming atmosphere, and the wanted to demonstrate

their beliefs through their interactions with the guests (Struck, 2010). Although the VWT meets

a need for low-income individuals, the community meal is for anyone who does not want to eat

alone (Struck, 2010). To create that sense of “radical inclusiveness,” the VWT uses circular

tables that seat seven people so that everyone has the opportunity to interact with the others

around them; this setup also resembles a restaurant and not a school cafeteria (Struck, 2010).

When the VWT began operations in 2001, volunteers served a meal once a month. After

about six months, however, volunteers and board members determined that there was a greater

need and the VWT began operating every Monday evening (Struck, 2010). Serving a weekly

meal was a significant change for the VWT, but the volunteers wanted to have a greater

influence on the community (Struck, 2010).

Lushbough served as the director of the VWT until 2008, in his absence the organization

was left without an executive director (Struck, 2010). Lushbough has since returned as the

executive director (Struck, 2010). Additionally, the organization functions with a core team

consisting of local community members, UMC and UCC members—typically this group is ten to

twelve individuals not all of which are always present for the Monday night meal (Feeding

Vermillion, 2016). The core team oversees the organization and facilitation of the volunteer

group that prepares and serves the meal (Feeding Vermillion, 2016). Most organizations spend

$200-250 on the meal and require seven to fifteen volunteers (Feeding Vermillion, 2016).

IMPLEMENTING A FOOD RECOVER PROGRAM xii

Important in the larger scheme

of delivering food to the VWT from

USD, it is noteworthy to discuss the

organization Feeding America. Feeding America works with major food producers,

manufacturers and retailers to rescue good, safe, excess food that would otherwise go to waste

and share it with food-insecure families in communities across the country (Feeding America,

2016). Feeding America is especially relevant as they are a founding member of the Food Waste

Reduction Alliance (“FWRA”), an organization dedicated to helping enhance the work done by

members across the food industry by building awareness and sharing best practices that help

avoid the negative environmental impact of good food going to landfills (FWRA, 2016).

Established in 2011, FWRA (2016) operates under the auspices of the food sector’s leading trade

associations, the Grocery Manufacturers Association (“GMA”), the Food Marketing Institute

(“FMI”), and the National Restaurant Association (“NRA”). This landmark, cross-industry

initiative includes more than 30 manufacturing, retailing and foodservice companies, along with

expert partners from the anti-hunger community and waste management sector (FWRA, 2016).

Aramark, a major food and food service provider for college campuses (including USD)

is also a member of the FWRA (2016). Although Aramark has made efforts to improve

sustainability on the USD campus, the link between VWT and wasted, good, useable food needs

to be bolstered. Each week Aramark employees at various USD Dining (2016) food locations—

Retail Marketplace, Einstein Bros Bagels, University Brew, Coyote Village POD, MUC C-Store,

and the Beede Bump—dispose food which should instead be distributed to VWT. Below is an

Welcome Table Success

Volunteer

group--rotation

al

Core Team--Consta

nt

Executive

Director--

Constant

IMPLEMENTING A FOOD RECOVER PROGRAM xiiiillustration of the interaction of the various organizations and forces which must interact to

complete the goal of food distribution form USD to the VWT.

Challenges and Benefits.

Although in reality the food will only travel three blocks from the Muenster University

Center at USD, to the VWT, there are a multitude of challenges, as well as benefits. The known

challenges thus far include student participation. The Student Government Association (“SGA”)

was presented a Resolution January 26, 2016 in support of instituting a food recovery program at

USD to help ensure program sustainability. Longevity and continued interest in a college

environment are difficult, as new students may value food re-use and food-insecurity less than

current students. Thus a well-defined plan clearly detailing the standard operating procedures

and providing advance notice is essential. Another challenge is to have USD as well as Aramark

agree to gift the food as an in-kind donation or alternatively surrender the food and relinquish

liability in the unlikely case that a consumer of this food became ill and brings litigation. An

ethical challenge is informing the public, VWT and VWT patrons of the origin of the food.

The benefits of this program are bountiful and significantly outweigh the named

challenges. This program will reduce food-insecurity in the Vermillion area, increase awareness

on the USD campus about the VWT, as well as food-insecurity in the community. Additionally,

Vermillion

Welcome

Vermillion

Welcome Table

AWOL

FRN

Feeding Vermillion

Legality

Longevity

Student Interest

USD Dining

Aramark

FWRA

IMPLEMENTING A FOOD RECOVER PROGRAM xivit will strengthen ties between the community and USD by showing the benefit of having a

college campus in a town where occasionally there can be resident animosity towards students;

especially over Dakota Days. This program fills a void reclassifying waste to food; it is

efficiently repurposed to meet the need of a food insecure population facilitated by a well-

established community organization, the VWT and the student organization, Alternative Week of

Off-campus Learning (“AWOL”).

Chapter II.

Introduction

Food waste and hunger are two problems which one solution can resolve; instead of

filling landfills, we should be feeding people (EPA, 2015). Food waste is one of the most critical

problems facing the world today, and it is beginning to garner increased attention (EPA, 2015;

Finn, M.S., O’Donnell, T., Walls, M., 2014). The traditional view of unsold food (or food

nearing the end of its shelf life) at farms and retail establishments in the U.S. has been one of

“waste” – a seemingly necessary cost of doing business that needed to be discarded as quickly

and inexpensively as possible to avoid disruption to future operations (Finn, M.S., et al, 2014).

With nearly 50 million (about one in six) Americans currently experiencing food insecurity—

meaning they do not have access and/or the resources to enough food to support an active,

healthy life—a strong moral, economic and environmental argument exists for the need to

capture and redistribute excess food (Feeding America, 2014; Finn, M.S., et al, 2014; Haley,

2013; Sitton, 2011; Cohen, 2006). Food recovery programs are already in place which utilize the

legal protections and offer a variety of approaches on how best to combat food insecurity. The

largest college and university organization, Food Recovery Network (“FRN”), has a network of

more than 150 colleges and universities in 35 states; collectively they recover 1,000 meals a day

which would otherwise go to waste and offer guidance on best practices (FRN, 2016).

IMPLEMENTING A FOOD RECOVER PROGRAM xvSolutions

The EPA has promulgated a Food Recovery Hierarchy which prioritizes actions

organizations can take to prevent and

divert wasted food (EPA, 2015;

Sitton, 2011; Kwon 2010; Kwon,

2009) (See Figure 1.) Most

organizations look to the EPA’s

Food Recovery Hierarchy when

implementing their individual

methods of food recovery, especially

because of the support programs the

EPA has instituted to encourage food recovery (EPA, 2015; Sitton, 2011).

While most programs adhere to the EPA (2015) Food Recovery Hierarchy, Shakman

(2013) suggests a “zero waste” hierarchy, which will (1) measure of progress based on total

waste generation, (2) the zero food waste hierarchy, and (3) recommit to the idea of zero. In my

review of the literature, Shakman (2013) “zero waste” hierarchy is either not well known by

organizations or is un-adopted by organizations affiliated with food recovery and waste

management best practices.

Law Reviews

Multiple legal writers have evaluated the topic of food-recovery, their articles generally

focus on the liability aspects of donation and all discuss the Bill Emerson Food Recovery Act

(“Emerson Act”), although they do not all share the same sentiment towards the success of the

Emerson Act. With the goal of increasing corporate donations by bringing down the barriers

between willing donors and those in need, President Bill Clinton signed the Emerson Act into

Figure 1.

IMPLEMENTING A FOOD RECOVER PROGRAM xvilaw on October 1, 1996 (Cohen, 2006; Emerson Act, 1996). The Emerson Act limits liability to

those who donate apparently safe food or grocery products, except for acts of gross negligence or

intentional misconduct (Emerson Act, 1996). Although uniform in Emerson Act discussion, law

review authors differ in opinion on the most effective way to combat the fear of liability from

donations, as well as encourage additional donations.

Collectively, Kalashian (2014), Haley (2013), Van Zuiden (2012), and Cohen (2006)

argue that the Emerson Act is a step in a positive direction, but has not met its full potential of

promoting increased food donations and lowering food waste. Kalashian (2014) suggests there is

still continued food waste because liability is not the main reason food gets wasted; the leading

cause of food waste is consumers throwing away edible food as a result of confusing date labels.

Haley (2013) notes the Emerson Act remains an underutilized tool as many in the retail food

industry remain unaware of the Emerson Act and the protections that it provides donors; some

potential donors even believe it is illegal to donate food and grocery items. Van Zuiden (2012)

holds while lawmakers have successfully mitigated the civil and criminal liabilities of donating,

they have been less proactive in ensuring that donating is fiscally possible for all potential food

donors; and revision of tort liability and tax incentive are requisite to revitalize the Emerson Act.

Cohen (2006) differs in thesis and suggests the underlying purpose of the act is flawed, as

it has shifted the responsibility of providing food to hungry citizens to the private and non-

governmental sectors instead of truly tackling the problem with substantive and effective hunger

reduction programs, as well as other programs that do not relate directly to food insecurity but

affect an individual's resources and, in turn, the amount of money they have to spend on food.

As a result, food insecure individuals must rely on non-governmental assistance, such as

emergency food donation centers (Cohen, 2006).

IMPLEMENTING A FOOD RECOVER PROGRAM xviiKalashian (2014) argues a uniform date labeling system will do a more efficient job of

stretching the life of food, therefore increasing the amount of food there is to donate, and

minimizing food waste. The lack of uniformity with the “sell by,” “use by” and “best by” dates

create confusion and account for large amounts of unnecessary waste (Kalashian, 2014; Haley,

2013; USDA, 2011). Supporting Kalashian (2014), according to a 2013 report from the Natural

Resources Defense Council (“NRDC”) and Harvard Law School’s Food Law and Policy Clinic

(“FLPC”), many Americans think their food is unsafe if the date they see on the label has already

passed (Sifferlin, 2015; NRDC, & Harvard Food Law and Policy Clinic, 2013).

Haley (2013) is less adamant that the labeling system is the weakness undercutting the

progress potential within the Emerson Act but does note that liability concerns exist as the Food

and Drug Administration (“FDA”) does not require the use of these dates for the products it

regulates; the use of these dates is the sole discretion of the manufacturer. Instead, the FDA

relies on the principle that “foods in U.S. commerce must be wholesome and fit for consumption,

thus the FDA would pursue an action against a manufacturer for a product that is dangerous to

consumers “regardless of any date printed on the label” (Haley, 2013).

However, federal regulation of date labels is so limited, states consequently have vast

discretion to regulate date labels in almost any way they see fit (Kalashian, 2014). Haley (2013)

states that although it does not exempt donors from liability from gross negligence or intentional

misconduct, the Emerson Act does not create any new liability; thus the Emerson Act already

covers the disparity of labeling. Kalashian (2014) in conjunction with the NRDC and FLPC

(2013) counter that a federal uniform date labeling system is needed with a single expiration date

that only addresses the safety of the food, as in the absence of uniform date labeling, it is

impossible to deduce dates significances (NRDC, & Harvard Food Law and Policy Clinic, 2013).

Van Zuiden (2012) is largely uninterested in the labeling component of the Emerson Act

IMPLEMENTING A FOOD RECOVER PROGRAM xviiiand recognized the last decade has seen the resurgence of the idiomatic “carrot” to encourage

excess food donation. A tax deduction or credit has a likelihood of increasing an individual's or

corporation's willingness to donate but while some inroads have already been made into the

United States Tax Code, Congress could do more to close an inequality between the treatment of

larger corporate donors and smaller donors like individual farmers and ranchers (Van Zuiden,

2012). ReFED (2016), in their proposed report on how to reduce food waste by 20 percent in the

United States agrees with Van Zuiden (2012), holding that additional tax incentives are required

to encourage food donations.

Van Zuiden (2012) and Cohen (2006) agree in that the Emerson Act can be classified as a

“feel-good-law,” as

opposed to legislation that

appropriately addresses the

issue of food waste and

food insecurity. However,

opposed in conclusion

Cohen (2006) argues that

the government has shifted

the burden of combating

food insecurity to non-profits and must do more as a government while Van

Zuiden (2012) suggested that the target organizations of the Emerson Act are correct;

nevertheless the incentive system is lacking. The ReFED (2016) proposal incorporates the

majority of Kalashian (2014), Haley (2013), Van Zuiden (2012), and Cohen (2006), concerns in

their Food Recovery Ecosystem (See Figure 2).

Figure 2.

IMPLEMENTING A FOOD RECOVER PROGRAM xixIn an effort to reconcile Kalashian (2014), Haley (2013), and Van Zuiden (2012) it each

agree that the general purpose of the Emerson Act is positive but more is required to significantly

combat food insecurity. However, Cohen (2006) proffers the Emerson Act’s romantic notion of

charity is misguided as the government’s efforts shift the burden to non-profits; a fatal flaw. A

consensus for revision via Congressional amendment is shared by Kalashian (2014), Haley

(2013), Van Zuiden (2012), who agree that increased awareness of the Emerson Act, although in

varying degrees of support note that uniformity in labeling will prevent unnecessary waste

omitting current confusion and decrease liability concerns as well as uniformity in the tax

incentives offered under the Emerson Act.

Smart Practices

Multiple campuses, communities and cities have taken steps to reduce waste while

simultaneously fighting hunger by implementing a variety of food repurposing programs.

Several authorities suggest the best method is food recovery, although there is discrepancy in

how to logistically complete the transfer of food.

Tucker (2013) highlights the launch of the Food Recovery Network (“FRN”) from the

inspiration initially of eleven students at D.C. University and College campuses that started

collecting unused food from their dining halls and donating the food to food pantries and

shelters. Since its humble beginning in the D.C. area FRN (2016) has grown into the largest

student movement against food waste and hunger in America. FRN (2016) found that in 2011,

75 percent of colleges had no food recovery program and were throwing away surplus food; they

IMPLEMENTING A FOOD RECOVER PROGRAM xxnow have programs where students can spend extra meal credits as a donation1 and state it

typically takes a month or two to start a food recovery program.

Organizations mostly follow the guidance set in place by FRN. For example, Boulder

Food Rescue (“BFR”) a sustainable food organization in Boulder, Colorado, relies on citizens

and local businesses food donations (BFR, 2016). BFR (2016) members transport food via

bicycle to local shelters and food donation centers. BFR (2016), like FRN (2016) focuses on

food recovery as opposed to the Food Donation Connection (“FDC”) (2016), which is a business

that manages food donation programs for food service companies interested in donating food.

The FDC (2016) donating process is based on donors receiving economic benefit through tax

savings in addition to involvement with community and corporate goodwill. Although FDC

(2016) aligns with Van Zuiden (2012) philosophy of encouraging donations for tax purposes, and

also furthers Cohen (2006) thesis, evidencing that a subindustry has emerged due to the void of

services provided by the government. However, FRN (2016) recognizes the economic benefits

and the tax purposes of donation but those are not the main organizational goal.

Instead of advocating for a food recovery program, Aramark (2008) proffered the

approach of introducing tray-less dinning in cafeterias. While this method addresses the peak of

the EPA (2015) Food Recovery Hierarchy, as the study showed a reduced amount of 46 pounds

per person per year of food and 288,288 gallons of water conserved, the approach failed to

address the second tier of the pyramid—feeding hungry people (Aramark, 2008). Although this

approach to energy conservation increased social awareness the conservation methods of

Aramark (2008), the food service industry must be merged with the FRN (2016) step of feeding

food insecure individuals to more effectively reduce waste while simultaneously combating

1 Although not discussed at any length in the project design, it is noteworthy that legislation which would allow students at USD to spend extra “flex” monies at USD locations to directly donate to AWOL’s student organization account where they would then write a check to Feeding Vermillion was drafted, discussed and then passed by SGA April, 12, 2016 (See Appendix A).

IMPLEMENTING A FOOD RECOVER PROGRAM xxihunger. Sitton (2011) also discussed the benefits of tray-less dinning—a two-thirds waste

reduction—at the University of Tennessee, however that program utilized the waste as compost

instead of removing it to the lowest level of the EPA (2015) Food Reduction Hierarchy; landfill.

The EPA (2015) has provided incentives and support to encourage food recovery as they

recognize the institutional obstructions to implementation. The Food Recovery Challenge

(“FRC”) is an EPA (2015) incentive program where organizations—colleges and universities,

K-12 schools, grocers, hospitals, food services providers and restaurants, sports and

entertainment venues, and other organizations—are recognized for their reduction of food waste.

In 2014, 800 FRC participants prevented and diverted nearly 606,000 tons of wasted food from

entering landfills or incinerators (EPA, 2015).  Of this amount, participants: prevented close to

86,000 tons of wasted food from being created through source reduction activities, donated more

than 88,500 tons of food to people in need, donated approximately 159,000 tons of food for use

as animal feed, anaerobically digested  over 22,000 tons of food, and composted over 218,000

tons of food (EPA, 2015). Along with the support and guidance of the FRN (2016), the

additional incentive of the FRC, EPA (2015) program provides powerful tools to encourage and

recognize campus innovations for food waste reduction.

Guiding Framework

Cultivate the support of the student body as well as the faculty/administration,

especially Aramark, the campus food provider.

Foster a shift in sustainable practices in accordance with the EPA (2015) Food

Recovery Hierarchy; leading to increased momentum for the eventual

implementation of a collection of food waste not suitable for humans to be

composted locally.

IMPLEMENTING A FOOD RECOVER PROGRAM xxii Create a sustainable system that encourages student involvement with a nonprofit

organization that has the demand for food, capacity to safely store and distribute

that food in accordance with the Emerson Act, Aramark regulations and FRN

(2016) guidelines.

Contact the FRN (2016) to apply for membership into the Food Recovery

Network for the benefits of support, acquired knowledge and recognition so the

organization can track the amount of food waste reduction.

Implement a protocol for collection, drop-off and distribution of the food that

comports with best practices as identified by the FRN, fits with the constraints of

FV and complies with the Emerson Act.

IMPLEMENTING A FOOD RECOVER PROGRAM xxiii

Chapter III.

Summary of Recommendations

The University of South Dakota should implement a student-led food recovery program.

Food recovery is the donation of wholesome food for human consumption which diverts waste

from landfills and puts food on the tables of food insecure families (USDA, 2011). The student

organization, AWOL is the organization that will be responsible for the sustained partnership

between USD and FV (AWOL, 2016). The food collected will be distributed in addition to the

IMPLEMENTING A FOOD RECOVER PROGRAM xxivmeal served by the volunteer group at the WT, thus the WT now could be providing 2-3 days’

worth of meals to food insecure individuals.

AWOL (2016), is a student-led organization on the campus of USD that sends students

on service-learning trips locally, around the country, and internationally to serve communities

and learn about the issues they face. In order to encourage active citizenship, AWOL (2016)

immerses students in educational service-learning experiences through exposure to diverse social

issues and encourages post-trip application of those experiences. By utilizing experiences and

education, AWOL (2016) enables participants to become active citizens, whose community

becomes a priority in values and life choices—such as volunteering for a food recovery program.

AWOL’s service will be in-connection with the national organization, Food Recovery Network.

FRN (2016) has the resources to ensure compliance with the Emerson Act and allows USD to be

recognized as one of the 185 Chapters FRN already has established.

Action Steps and Timeline for Implementation—Gantt chart (below)

The Gantt chart serves as a framework for the interplay of the various stakeholders and

activities which occurred concurrently during implementation. The chart has been split into

categories: Identify Objectives, Research, Support (SGA), Leadership, and Implementation

which now will start Fall 2016.

IMPLEMENTING A FOOD RECOVER PROGRAM xxv

IMPLEMENTING A FOOD RECOVER PROGRAM xxvi

IMPLEMENTING A FOOD RECOVER PROGRAM xxviiCommunication and Leadership Strategy

The relevant stakeholders include: Aramark at USD, USD Administration, USD

Students, FRN, FV, recipients of food at the Welcome Table and AWOL. The communal, goal

centric, interaction between all groups is requisite for successful implementation. To raise

awareness about the program communication detailing the implementation process is necessary.

SGA was presented legislation on February 11, 2016 as supporting resolutions for the

implementation of a food recovery program at USD (See Appendix B). SGA voted and passed

this resolution April 12, 2016. Additionally, the student newspaper (February 16, 2016) and

Coyote Television (February 24, 2016) ran stories bolstering student awareness and pressure on

Aramark to implement this policy.

Trust Culture Leadership Perspective assumes that follower development, team success,

and effective culture depend on trust (Fairholm & Fairholm, 2009). Values establish the

foundation for more specific operational and interpersonal work standards used by the group

(Fairholm & Fairholm, 2009). Incorporating Trust Culture Leadership into the communication

strategy for assigning a sustaining group is critical; AWOL’s (2016) core values of diversity,

education and application align with the communal aspect of the campus-to-community goal of a

food recovery program.

Although scientific management—the theory of management that analyzes and

synthesizes workflows—with the main objective as improving economic efficiency could be

useful for developing collection and data collection protocol but is not included in the

communication process of deciding what group aligns with the projects goals (Taylor, 1911).

AWOL and FV are organizations which fit the Trust Culture guidelines—the culture

environment leaders create may produce a trust situation where certain actions can produce

certain results (Fairholm & Fairholm, 2009).

IMPLEMENTING A FOOD RECOVER PROGRAM xxviiiOrganizational (Re)Design Issues

The initial “plan” of implementation was to have the State & Local Committee within

SGA oversee the sustained donation system as the paternal organization. After discussions with

Jamie Brocker, the New Chapter Coordinator with FRN it became apparent that the less moving

parts, the better (J. Brocker, personal communication, February 23, 2016). Brocker in

accordance with FRN protocol suggested assembling a core-team of three to seven dedicated

individuals (J. Brocker, personal communication, February 23, 2016). The prospect of starting a

new student organization which would fulfill this role in my absence next year seemed

inauspicious. After reaching out to several established student organizations—USD

Sustainability Club, Students Enhancing Resources for Vermillion Enrichment (“SERVE”) and

AWOL—AWOL proved to be the most established service-oriented organization fit for this task.

AWOL has the organizational leadership, membership and community connection which are

required to sustain this program. Although the prospect of SGA having a new student

organization each week volunteer would have increased awareness, the decrease in

accountability, increased training and increased likelihood of a missed pick-up make AWOL a

much sounder decision.

Organizational Chart (Below):

IMPLEMENTING A FOOD RECOVER PROGRAM xxix

Personnel Issues

As discussed in Organizational (Re)design, pursuant to FRN (2016) protocol a core team

of three to seven dedicated individuals is required. Within AWOL’s seven person Executive

Board there is the position of Director of Community Events, this position was discussed as

potentially adopting food recovery operations but it was determined a new position, Director of

Food Recovery needed to be added to the seven person Executive Board (AWOL, 2016).

The position title: Food Recovery Director will work directly with the volunteers, FRN and FV.

Below is the position description:

Primary Duties: Maintain contact with Food Recovery Network to ensure compliance with their policies and the Bill Emerson Good Samaritan Food

AWOL

Aramark

National Campus Level

USD

Faculty Support

Student Support

Feeding Vermillion

Vermillion Welcome

Table

Food Pantry

Vermillion Backpack Program

Food Recovery Network

Campus Coordinator

Director of Food RecoveryAWOL Executive

Board

AWOL Site-Leaders

Trip Participants

IMPLEMENTING A FOOD RECOVER PROGRAM xxxRecovery Act. Collect and calculate data on number of volunteers, volunteer hours, amount of food collected, amount of recipients of food, additional need, and continue to develop smart practice ideas. Maintain contact with Feeding Vermillion officials to ensure that collection and distribution of collected food items is in accordance with protocol. Train all AWOL Site-Leaders on how to correctly pick-up, transport, distribute and sort food donations at Feeding Vermillion. Package the collected food safely so that Feeding Vermillion—Welcome Table volunteers can distribute the food at the Welcome Table Monday evenings. Schedule volunteers so each Site-Leader and 2-3 of their participants will each week collect the food from the designated pick-up location. Attend weekly AWOL Board meetings, remain in academic good-standing and strive towards active-citizenship.

The Food Recovery Director will oversee 17 weeks of food recovery in the Fall

academic term and 17 weeks in the Spring academic term. Since trip participants are not

selected immediately, the first seven weeks of food collection will be mainly attributed to

the Food Recovery Director but may additionally be assigned to AWOL Executive Board

members and Site-Leaders. This is a volunteer position and will be uncompensated.

AWOL adopted by vote of the Executive Board the position of Director of Food

Recovery into their by-laws March 21, 2016 (AWOL, 2016). AWOL published the

position description in their annual Executive Board selection process (AWOL, 2016).

After reviewing the qualifications of multiple applicants and conducting interviews the

Executive Board elected sophomore, Hailey Purves as first Director of Food Recovery.

Purves has since meet with John Lushbough, Adam Chicoine of USD Dining and was

presented a binder outlining the duties of the Food Recovery Director position—

including food collection protocol.

IMPLEMENTING A FOOD RECOVER PROGRAM xxxiBudget

USD Work-study wageWage $9.25Collection Time 1 Hour Times 3 $27.75Sort Time 1 Hour Times 3 $27.75Package Time 1 Hour Times 3 $27.75Administrative Time 2 Hours Only Director $18.50

Weekly Total $101.75Fall Semester 17 Weeks Spring Semester 17 weeks

Thirty Four Week Total $3,459.50Cost of Food Donated $ 70 Per Week

Thirty Four Week Total $2,380.00Reduced FV Purchase cost $ 1,000 AnnuallyAramark Tax Incentive $ 300 AnnuallyReduced Waste Costs $ 1,000 Annually

Annual Total $2,300.00Total Program Savings $8,139.50

Volunteer Wage1

Wage $23.07Collection Time 1 Hour Times 3 $69.21Sort Time 1 Hour Times 3 $69.21Package Time 1 Hour Times 3 $69.21Administrative Time 2 Hours Only Director $46.10

Weekly Total $253.73Fall Semester 17 Weeks Spring Semester 17 weeks

Thirty Four Week Total $8,626.82Cost of Food Donated $ 70 Per Week

Thirty Four Week Total $2,380Reduced FV Purchase cost $ 1,000 AnnuallyAramark Tax Incentive $ 300 AnnuallyReduced Waste Costs $ 1,000 Annually

Annual Total $2,300Total Program Savings $13,306.82

2

2 The estimated value of volunteer time for 2014 is $23.07 per hour, according to Independent Sector, a coalition of charities, foundations, corporations, and individuals that publishes research important to the nonprofit sector. http://grantspace.org/tools/knowledge-base/Nonprofit-Management/Employment-Volunteering/monetary-value-of-volunteer-time

IMPLEMENTING A FOOD RECOVER PROGRAM xxxii

South Dakota Minimum Wage2

Wage $8.55Collection Time 1 Hour Times 3 $25.65Sort Time 1 Hour Times 3 $25.65Package Time 1 Hour Times 3 $25.65Administrative Time 2 Hours Only Director $17.10

Weekly Total $94.05Fall Semester 17 Weeks Spring Semester 17 weeks

Thirty Four Week Total $3,197.70Cost of Food Donated $ 70 Per Week

Thirty Four Week Total $2,380Reduced FV Purchase cost $ 1,000 AnnuallyAramark Tax Incentive $ 300 AnnuallyReduced Waste Costs $ 1,000 Annually

Annual Total $2,300Total Program Savings $7,877.70 3

The “Total Program Savings” represent the opportunity costs avoided by the State, City

of Vermillion or University of South Dakota implementing the program. The FRN (2016)

additionally provides for a one-time grant ($250-$500) to purchase transportation bins for food

recovery. This grant application is included in the Director of Food Recovery binder but cannot

be submitted to FRN until a month before the first food recover is set to occur; late August,

2016. The Director of Food Recovery and Aramark have scheduled meetings over the summer

to further discuss the types of food which will be donated and will select the containers which fit

the legal requirements for safe food transportation—with the additional oversight of the FRN

(2016).

3 South Dakota Department of Labor and Regulations: Effective January 1, 2016, the minimum wage for non-tipped employees in South Dakota is $8.55 an hour. http://dlr.sd.gov/wagehrs/minimumwage.aspx

IMPLEMENTING A FOOD RECOVER PROGRAM xxxiiiConstitutional and Legal Considerations

The implementation of a food recovery program at USD auspiciously has federal, as well

as state laws supporting food donation, which significantly decrease (and essentially eliminate)

the risk of donor, volunteer and distributer liability.

Good Samaritan Food Donation Laws.

Regrettably, many food businesses hesitate to donate excess food because of fear that

doing so will expose their enterprise to unmanageable and unnecessary risk of liability for

foodborne illnesses, allergen exposure, and other negative consequences from the ultimate

consumers of recovered food (Jacobs, 2014; Tucker, 2013; Cohen, 2006). Good Samaritan food

donation laws seek to alleviate this concern (Cohen, 2006; Morenoff, 2002). These measures

attempt to encourage donations of food by limiting the liability of food donors (Morenoff, 2002).

Although Good Samaritan food donation laws did not exist in the United States prior to the late

1970s, the movement for such measures has made great strides in the last quarter century

(Morenoff, 2002). California and Oregon were amongst the first states to introduce Good

Samaritan food donation laws, within ten years of California's adoption every state reached the

same answer to the fundamental public policy question and concluded that the social benefits of

feeding hungry people did indeed outweigh the ability of people to sue for any injury incurred in

consuming food donated to charity (Morenoff, 2002). To different degrees, these laws displace

the general rule of strict liability that all 50 states apply to distributors of defective products

when the defective aspect causes injury (Morenoff, 2002).

South Dakota Food Donor Protections.

In September 27, 1989, Roger A. Tellinghuisen, the Attorney General for the State of

South Dakota issued an Official Opinion in regard to Karen A. Johnson, Custer County State’s

Attorney question concerning county funding of nonprofit or charitable organizations for

IMPLEMENTING A FOOD RECOVER PROGRAM xxxivdistribution of food assistance to indigent or poor persons pursuant to SDCL ch. 28-13

(Tellinghuisen, 1989). The relevant facts include:

Custer County, under its Poor Relief Ordinance of 1986, provides food assistance to indigent residents. Such assistance becomes a lien on the individual's property. The Custer Food Pantry receives donations of food and money from various churches, organizations and individuals in the community. Custer County is considering incorporating the Custer Food Pantry into their county budget and referring indigent individuals in need of food to the Custer Food Pantry.(Tellinghuisen, 1989).

Custer County State’s Attorney asked four questions, question number (1) and (4) are

most pertinent; (1) May Custer County make the Custer Food Pantry part of its budget?; (4) If

Custer County may refer indigents in need of food assistance to the Custer Food Pantry, would

Custer County and Custer Food Pantry be immune from damages resulting from the condition of

distributed food (Tellinghuisen, 1989)?

In answering question (1) the Official Opinion cited The South Dakota Supreme Court in

Jerauld County v. St. Paul-Mercury Indemnity Company holding, “[g]overnmental support of the

poor and indigent has long been recognized as a means of promoting the general welfare of the

state[]; [i]t is an exercise of the police power of the state” (Jerauld Cty. v. St. Paul-Mercury

Indem. Co., 76 S.D. 1, 7, 71 N.W.2d 571, 574 (1955)). The Jerauld County opinion reiterated

that while each county has a duty to administer relief and assistance to indigent or poor persons,

[the county has] a choice as to the means by which such relief is provided (Tellinghuisen, 1989).

Hence, where the provision of food may be necessary to properly care for a county's indigent or

poor and the commissioners of that county determine a food pantry program to be an appropriate

means, SDCL § 28-13-164 authorizes a county to fund such a program (Tellinghuisen, 1989).

4 The county commissioners in each county are responsible for the care and relief of all poor persons in the county as provided by this chapter as long as those persons remain eligible. The commissioners may designate a county official to assist in the coordination of poor relief information with other counties.S.D. Codified Laws § 28-13-16.

IMPLEMENTING A FOOD RECOVER PROGRAM xxxvRegarding question (4) the Official Opinion cited the South Dakota Legislature S.D.

Codified Laws §§ 39-4-22,5 39-4-23,6 39-4-24 and 39-4-25 which procured protection to food

donors (USDA/EPA, 2010; Tellinghuisen, 1989). The Attorney General’s predecessor in office

opined that SDCL 39-4-23 presumes to exempt “a bona fide charitable or nonprofit

organization” from “criminal penalty or civil damages” (Tellinghuisen, 1989; See Official

Opinion No. 84-15). Hence, where a food pantry program could be organized as a bona fide

charitable or nonprofit organization, and recipients receive food items free of charge therefrom,

liability would appear to be limited by statute (Tellinghuisen, 1989). Thus by statute and

Official Opinion, in South Dakota food donation to a bona fide charitable or nonprofit

organization is exempt from criminal penalty or civil damages.

Bill Emerson Good Samaritan Food Donation Act.

Within the United States, the states' widespread experimentation with Good Samaritan

food donation laws represented a substantial victory for proponents of this approach to

combating hunger (Morenoff, 2002). Nonetheless, by the late 1980s, voices within this camp of

food donation supporters surveyed the patchwork of state laws and suggested that their goal

would be better served by uniform legislation; with this aim in mind, the country's largest

charitable feeding organization, America's Second Harvest, and other groups brought their

message to the national stage (Morenoff, 2002).

5 The good-faith donor of any perishable food, apparently fit for human consumption, to a bona fide charitable or nonprofit organization for free distribution, or a gleaner of any perishable food apparently fit for human consumption, is not subject to criminal penalty or civil damages arising from the condition of the food, unless an injury is caused by the gross negligence, recklessness, or intentional conduct of the donor or gleaner.S.D. Codified Laws § 39-4-22.6 A bona fide charitable or nonprofit organization which in good faith receives food, apparently fit for human consumption, and distributes it at no charge, is not subject to criminal penalty or civil damages resulting from the condition of the food unless an injury results from the gross negligence, recklessness, or intentional conduct of the organization. S.D. Codified Laws § 39-4-23.

IMPLEMENTING A FOOD RECOVER PROGRAM xxxviThe first proposal for a federal Good Samaritan food donation law came before Congress

on March 1, 1990 (Morenoff, 2002). There Senator Don Nickles (R-OK) and a bipartisan group

of cosponsors offered amendment number 1283 (Morenoff, 2002). Senator Nickles argued that

because many food donors were national in scope, the patchwork of 50 state Good Samaritan

food donation laws complicated donations and therefore the states should voluntarily adopt the

Model Act (Morenoff, 2002). Attracting little attention in the House and Senate the Model Act

became Title IV of the National and Community Service Act, which President Bush signed into

law on November 16, 1990—The Model Act was then codified at 42 U.S.C §§ 12,671-12,673

(Morenoff, 2002).

The success of the Model Act depended on large part that states would adopt the act;

however, only one state took this course of action in the five ensuing years, the concerns behind

the Model Act loomed just as large in the mid-1990s as they had before Congress entered the

fray (Morenoff, 2002). The remaining disparities among the state Good Samaritan food donation

laws came to the attention of Representative Pat Danner (D-MO), when one of her constituents,

contacted her frustrated because a major national corporation in the town had changed its policy

on food donations (Morenoff, 2002). During House debate on the Bill Emerson Act,

Representative Goodling said, “[m]any times individuals and corporations are interested in

donating food to the needy however, the fear of liability prevents them from doing so” (as cited

in Haley, 2013).

During Senate debate, Senator Santorum concurred, noting that “[l]iability concerns are

the overriding reason why unsalable, but otherwise wholesome, food is destroyed rather than

donated to charity” (as cited in Haley, 2013). Another Senator, Senator Bond said, “[i]n the past,

private donors have been reluctant to make contributions to nonprofit organizations because they

are concerned about potential civil and criminal liability” (as cited in Haley, 2013). According

IMPLEMENTING A FOOD RECOVER PROGRAM xxxviito a former food rescue director, donors' concerns about liability are the biggest obstacle that

charitable food programs face (as cited in Haley, 2013).

To address this problem, and the failure of the Model Act, Representative Danner

developed legislation to give the Model Act the full force and effect of law (Morenoff, 2002).

Representative Danner enlisted Representative Bill Emerson (R-MO), as the first cosponsor

because Emerson had become a leading voice on hunger issues during his tenure in Congress, his

support for H.R. 2428 increased the bill's credibility (Morenoff, 2002). Representative Danner

later remarked, “It was Bill[] [Emerson’s] tireless effort in talking to members of the leadership,

committee and subcommittee chairmen ... that made the legislation a reality” (as cited in

Morenoff, 2002).

Towards the later stages of the legislative process, Representative Emerson's health began

to fail (Haley, 2013). Representative Emerson passed away on June 22, 1996, before final

passage of the bill (Haley, 2013). After his passing, Congress amended the bill so that it would

be titled “The Bill Emerson Good Samaritan Food Donation Act” to honor his efforts at reducing

hunger and improving the nation's nutrition programs (Haley, 2013). President Bill Clinton

signed H.R. 2428 into law on October 1, 1996 (Morenoff, 2002) See Appendix C: § 1791Bill

Emerson Good Samaritan Food Donation Act. In my review of the Emerson Act there was a

total void of lawsuits arising under the Act, meaning potentially a few outcomes (1) the Emerson

Act has never been tested; (2) The Emerson Act is so thorough in safeguarding food donors and

distributors no lawsuit has prevailed past summary judgement; or (3) Donors of food settle cases

involving food illnesses to avoid bad publicity.

Preemption.

Facially, the Emerson Act conflicts with most state laws concerning food donation and

the liability of donors (Haley, 2013). The general rule for a conflict between state and federal

IMPLEMENTING A FOOD RECOVER PROGRAM xxxviiilaw is that federal law preempts state law; preemption can be express or implied, full or partial

(Haley, 2013). The Emerson Act is silent on the matter of preemption; however, the legislative

history clearly manifests Congressional intent for the Act to supersede conflicting state and local

law, the Emerson Act is an example of implied preemption (Haley, 2013). During floor debate,

numerous congressional representatives [Senator Santorum and Representative Clay] expressly

stated that they intended for the Bill Emerson Act to “establish[] a single national liability

standard for the good-faith donation of food and grocery products” and believed that doing so

would “encourage and enable restaurants, grocers, and other donors to help feed the hungry” (as

cited in Haley, 2013).

The Emerson Act's implied preemption power does not mean that states cannot develop

their own “Good Samaritan” laws—such as SDCL §§ 39-4-22, 39-4-23—that protect those

involved in food donation activities and encourage food donation7 (Haley, 2013). Rather, the

Emerson Act only preempts those state or local laws that provide less liability protection (Haley,

2013). The Emerson Act's liability protection operates as a floor for liability protection for those

involved in the covered activities; states are free to increase the amount of liability protection

afforded to those involved or to expand the covered activities and personnel (Haley, 2013).

Therefore, the Emerson Act only partially preempts state law (Haley, 2013; Morenoff, 2002).

Ethical Considerations

Although altruistic in design—very few people likely will have problems feeding food

insecure individuals—to ensure thoroughness the following concerns per arguendo will be

discussed.7 Although not discussed in detail both Internal Revenue Code 170(e)(3) and the U.S. Federal Food Donation Act of 2008 are noteworthy. IRS 170(e)(3) provides enhanced tax deductions to businesses to encourage donations of fit and wholesome food to qualified nonprofit organizations serving the poor and needy.  Qualified business taxpayers can deduct the cost to produce the food and half the difference between the cost and full fair market value of the donated food. The U.S. Federal Food Donation Act of 2008 specifies procurement contract language encouraging Federal agencies and contractors of Federal agencies to donate excess wholesome food to eligible nonprofit organizations to feed food-insecure people in the United States.

IMPLEMENTING A FOOD RECOVER PROGRAM xxxixThe encouragement of a food recovery system relieves the government of its obligation to care for the poor.

South Dakota Codified Laws § 28-13-16 requires the county commissioners of each

South Dakota county be responsible for the care and relief of all poor persons in the county. In

enacting Good Samaritan laws, the government has shifted the responsibility of providing food

to hungry citizens to the private and non-governmental sectors instead of truly tackling the

problem with substantive and effective hunger reduction programs, as well as other programs

that do not relate directly to food insecurity but affect an individual's resources and, in turn, the

amount of money they have to spend on food (Cohen, 2006). As a result, food insecure

individuals must rely on non-governmental assistance, such as emergency food donation centers

(Cohen, 2006).

Comparatively, officials in the French Parliament voted unanimously to put an end to

food waste by forcing large grocery stores to donate unsold food (White, 2015). Jacques Bailet,

head of Banques Alimentaires, a network of French food banks, described the law as “positive

and very important symbolically” (Chrisafis, 2016). Bailet said it would greatly increase an

already emerging trend for supermarkets to donate to food banks, “most importantly, because

supermarkets will be obliged to sign a donation deal with charities, we’ll be able to increase the

quality and diversity of food we get and distribute” (Chrisafis, 2016). Although laws such as this

reduce the government’s obligation to provide assistance to the poor, it does not divert resources

from productive source; it saves what would be wasted.

Addressing the French food recovery from a Kant perspective it is requisite to examine

deontological ethics. Immanuel Kant’s deontological theory requires; (1) that to act in the

morally right way, people must act from duty (deon); (2) it was not the consequences of actions

that make them right or wrong but the motives of the person who carries out the action (Kant,

IMPLEMENTING A FOOD RECOVER PROGRAM xl1785). Kant (1785) argues that to act in the morally right way one must act purely from duty

beginning with an argument that the highest good must be both good in itself and good without

qualification. Something is "good in itself" when it is intrinsically good, and "good without

qualification", when the addition of that thing never makes a situation ethically worse (Kant,

1785). Although the French required donation of the food is “good in itself,” the duty is no

longer from the morally right way but is required by law.

The argument that enacting a food recovery program in Vermillion, the Clay County

Commissioners duty of providing care and relief for poor persons is reduced is untrue. The

program will not fulfill all of the needs of individuals in need nor will it prohibit current

government programs, or discourage other altruistic behavior.

The danger of donating food outweighs the benefits of donating.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (“CDC”), there are an

estimated 48 million foodborne illness cases annually in the United States, which translates to

one case for every six Americans each year (CDC, 2011). The consequences for being the

source of a foodborne illness are harsh: “[a]ll fifty states generally hold one who distributes food

or any other defective product, the defective aspect of which causes injury, to be strictly liable,

which means liable even in the absence of negligence” (as cited in Haley, 2013).

The consequence of igniting a food borne illness is for moral reasons, economic reasons

and public relations reasons as well as the fact that the Good Samaritan Act protects the donor—

obviating the food recipient who became ill from any legal recourse. But food recovery

programs provide many benefits to numerous stakeholders. Some of these benefits include: (1)

Save businesses money otherwise spent on trash collection and disposal fees; (2) Provide

wholesome food to needy families in the community; (3) Help communities and businesses meet

state and local waste reduction goals; (4) Create and improved public image for businesses; (5)

IMPLEMENTING A FOOD RECOVER PROGRAM xliHelp sustain local industries and jobs; and (6) Reduce waste generated and methane gas

produced by landfills (Haley, 2013). Additionally, Jeremy Bentham, the founder of

Utilitarianism, defined utility as the aggregate pleasure after deducting suffering of all involved

in any action (Hall, 1949). Under the utilitarianism theory—in normative ethics holding that the

best moral action is the one that maximizes utility—the food recovery program despite the risk

of sickness to some would be supported (Hall, 1949).

Assessment Methodology

Aramark at USD has prohibited the collection, documentation and photography of food

which is currently disposed of; therefore, the pre-implementation waste profile which is

suggested by the FRN (2016) is unfulfilled. The FRN (2016) provides all chapters with scales

and uniform collection sheets to document the collection of recovered food. Since 2011, FRN

(2016) has recovered 1,198,857 pounds of food. Since all the food at USD is currently disposed

of, the first-year will serve as a data collection period for assessing future goals. AWOL in

conjunction with FRN should incorporate SMART (specific, measurable, achievable, relevant,

time-bound) performance goals when assessing future aspirations (MIT, 2016). Within the first

year, AWOL’s SMART goal could be to include at minimum, two participants from each one of

their Spring or Fall break trips on a food recovery. AWOL, specifically the Director of Food

Recovery was provided an excel sheet to be used each recovery for AWOL data collection as

well as to fill out the required FRN online form.

A future goal for AWOL, FRN as well as FV would be collecting the excess food from

the Aramark kitchen i.e. the leftovers from the Commons—however this would require increased

infrastructure for transporting, storing and distributing. Additionally, it would be prudent to

evaluate whether the Vermillion population could utilize the increased amount of donations;

perhaps pursuant to the EPA (2015) Food Hierarchy it would be more effective to feed animals

IMPLEMENTING A FOOD RECOVER PROGRAM xliior compost. The future of food recovery and ensuring compliance with the EPA (2015) Food

Hierarchy is now in the very capable hands of AWOL.

Decision-making Tools/Strategies

The decisions made towards how to most effectively implement a food recovery program

at USD were guided by best practices from well-established national organizations, namely FRN

(2016). FRN (2016) has cultivated connections with major campus food providers—including

Aramark—which is crucial in convincing local branches of those organizations that concerns

over both criminal and civil liability are unfounded. As discussed in Communication and

Leadership Strategy, bolstering awareness of this new program on campus informing multiple

media outlets, administration and student organizations was crucial to make informed decisions

and provide support for implementation. Below is a decision making flowchart. Additionally, a

site visit at the Seattle Pacific University, March 18, 2016 where a food recovery was observed,

information was exchanged and questions were answered by Maya Swinehardt, a senior in

Biology confirmed implementation decisions.

IMPLEMENTING A FOOD RECOVER PROGRAM xliii

Organizational Policy Process

IMPLEMENTING A FOOD RECOVER PROGRAM xlivMost people inherently understand that wasting food is unscrupulous and should be

avoided, but the majority of these people do not know the extent of the issue nor are they aware

of its economic or environmental costs (Haley, 2013). A 2008 study put the value of the food

wasted at the retail and consumer levels at a combined $165.5 billion (Haley, 2013). Food waste

is especially problematic because its decomposition produces greenhouse gas emissions. “When

food is disposed of in a landfill it rots and becomes a significant source of methane - a potent

greenhouse gas with 21 times the global warming potential of carbon dioxide. Landfills are a

major source of human-related methane in the United States, accounting for more than 20

percent of all methane emissions” (EPA, 2013; Haley, 2013).

The United States is the richest nation in the world, yet it continues to have a very real

hunger problem (Haley, 2013). It is sad and seemingly irreconcilable that a country that wastes

an estimated 96 billion pounds of food each year has a persistent and widespread hunger problem

(Haley, 2013). Common sense supposes that if the United States could dispose of so much food

there must be a surplus and all Americans were adequately fed but this is far from true; there is a

serious disconnect in the U.S. food system (Haley, 2013). The policy of feeding food insecure

individuals, reducing food waste which results in unnecessary greenhouse gas emissions as well

as utilizing the support of existing law completes the policy analysis that implementing a food

recovery plan at USD is prudent.

Aramark at USD agreed after they received more information on the concept of food

recovery as well as guidance from Aramark Corporate. Dean Greives of the University of South

Dakota supported food recovery as USD after learning SGA passed a resolution in support and

she acknowledged the campus-to-community connection this program would foster. AWOL

(2016) recognized the policy interests in food recovery aligned with their goals of encouraging

Active Citizenship.

IMPLEMENTING A FOOD RECOVER PROGRAM xlvChapter IV.

Conclusions

Eliminating food waste and simultaneously decreasing the amount of food insecure

individuals requires only one solution; the implementation of a food recovery program. For the

aforementioned reasons, USD should, and has adopted the implementation of a food recovery

program as suggested by this Capstone report. Although the guiding framework, smart practices

and support of FRN have been critical to the suggested, as well as actual implement of a food

recovery program, implementation has not occurred without resistance.

Despite opposition, SGA passed a resolution in support of implementing a food recovery

program on April 12, 2016. AWOL adopted a new position; Director of Food Recovery into

their constitution, elected Hailey Purves to fill that position and since then Purves has met the

various stakeholders, reviewed the Food Recovery Director binder and is set to begin food

recoveries at USD beginning the Fall 2016 semester. Aramark at USD has received

confirmation from Aramark’s corporate offices detailing that Aramark already has established

protocol in place, affirming the legality of food recovery and to support food recovery at USD

(omitted due to confidentiality specifications of the email). The guiding framework, Gantt chart,

best practices and support of the FRN have made the suggestion for how to implement a food

recovery program at USD a reality.

The completion of this Capstone required utilizing knowledge and skills acquired from

all of the M.P.A. core courses. Due to the nature of this Capstone, requiring actual deadlines,

which often overlapped, I found the information from Analytic Technic in Public Policy

extremely useful. The Gantt chart, as well as SMART goals which were instilled as hallmarks of

public administration tools in the tool box of administrative resources proved accurate. The

IMPLEMENTING A FOOD RECOVER PROGRAM xlvinumerous class assignments analyzing the interaction, goals and decisions of organizations

added in my ability to formulate policy decisions in this Capstone.

Recalling Public Personnel Management, the carrot and stick idiom for motivation, as

discussed in class was directly related to my concerns of longevity when drafting position

descriptions, legislation and cultivating support. Public Personnel Management in conjunction

with Analytic Technic provided the basis for designing the position description, the relationship

the position would have with the rest of the AWOL Executive Board and what future goals the

position could achieve. Organizations and Management provided useful insight into how best to

align the structure of the existing organizations and how to provide longevity to the food

recovery program at USD. Additionally, Organizations and Management in connection with

Administrative Law and Seminar in Public Administration emphasized the importance of

acknowledging authority; be it federal law, state law, university policy, Aramark rule, campus

politics, nonprofit structures and student organization structure.

Research Methods facilitated a strong background in implementation measurement tools

and opened multiple opportunities for future benchmarks once data is collected. However, in

this Capstone due to the lack of data there was no ability to analyze data but the data later will be

essential to affirm the success of the program. The FRN relies heavily on the collection on data

for their organization, as should AWOL to use as a tool to further introduce sustainable practices

at USD—the tools have been left in place for AWOL to collect that data, I am confident the

leadership has the skillset to use data as a policy tool. Budgetary & Fiscal Management ensured

a background in finances which will highlight the benefit of this program, provide grant support.

Advanced Leadership Theory and Practice, like Public Personnel Management cultivated

the methodology of aligning the relevant stakeholders and directing their support to the ends

proffered by the capstone recommendations. In the same vein as Seminar in Public

IMPLEMENTING A FOOD RECOVER PROGRAM xlviiAdministration, Advanced Leadership Theory & Practice, in theory, as well as practice was

greatly depend on upon when coordinating with all relevant stakeholders and deciding how best

to draft the position description to be inclusive instead of scientific in leadership. Administrative

Thought/Ethics aside from the mentioned ethical conundrums in the Capstone provided the

groundwork for many ethical conversations stemming from the idea of giving food which would

normally be thrown away to people in need.

This Capstone report reinforced the rigor, thoroughness, and value of the M.P.A’s core

course requirements. Drawing from the skills and knowledge acquired from each course

demystified the fear of “doing” public administration as a practitioner, whatever that may look

like in my future. This is especially true since my Capstone is not hypothetical, the skills and

knowledge allowed for not just the suggested implementation protocol, but the successful

implementation of a food recovery program at The University of South Dakota.

ReferencesAramark Higher Education. (2008). The business and cultural acceptance case for trayless

dining. Retrieved from http://www.aramarkhighered.com/ThoughtLeadership/Articles.asp

Alternative Week of Off-campus Learning. (2016). Alternative Week of Off-Campus Learning. Retrieved from https://usdawol.org/

Bill Emerson Good Samaritan Food Donation Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1791 (1996).

IMPLEMENTING A FOOD RECOVER PROGRAM xlviii

Boulder Food Recovery. (2016). Boulder Food Rescue: How it works. Retrieved from http://www.boulderfoodrescue.org/index.php/how-it-works/.

Kalashian, S., C. (2014). Out of Sight, Out of Mind: Finding A Solution to Food Waste in America, 23 San Joaquin Agric. L. Rev. 103, 123 (2014).

Center for Disease Control. (2011) Estimates of Foodborne Illness in the United States, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, http://www.cdc.gov/foodborneburden/2011-foodborne-estimates.html (last visited March 13, 2016).

Chrisafis, A. (2016). The Guardian: French law forbids food waste by supermarkets. Retrieved March 13, 2016, from http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/feb/04/french-law-forbids-food-waste-by-supermarkets.

Cohen, A., J. (2006). Ten Years of Leftovers with Many Hungry Still Left over: A Decade of Donations Under the Bill Emerson Good Samaritan Food Donation Act, 5 Seattle Journal for Social Justice 455.

Coleman-Jensen, A., Gregory, C., & Rabbitt, M. (2015). USDA ERS - Food Security in the U.S.: Definitions of Food Security. Retrieved from http://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/food-nutrition-assistance/food-security-in-the-us/definitions-of-food-security.aspx

Environmental Protection Agency. (2015). Environmental Protection Agency: Sustainable Management of Food Basics. Retrieved from http://www.epa.gov/sustainable-management-food/sustainable-management-food-basics#environmental.

Fairholm, M. R., & Fairholm, G. W. (2009). Understanding leadership perspectives: Theoretical and practical approaches. New York: Springer.

Feeding America. (2016). Hunger and Poverty Facts and Statistics. Retrieved from http://www.feedingamerica.org/hunger-in-america/impact-of-hunger/hunger-and-poverty/hunger-and-poverty-fact-sheet.html

Feeding South Dakota. (2016). Hunger Facts. Retrieved from http://www.feedingsouthdakota.org/hunger-in-sd/hunger-facts/

Feeding Vermillion. (2016). Vermillion Welcome Table. Retrieved from http://www.welcometable.org/WelcomeTable/

Finn, M. S., O’Donnell, T., Walls, M. (2014). The Time Is Ripe for Food Recovery. BioCycle, 44(8) 42-47.

Food Donation Connection. (2016). Food Donation Connection. Retrieved Feb. 1, 2016. http://www.foodtodonate.com/Fdcmain/About.aspx.

IMPLEMENTING A FOOD RECOVER PROGRAM xlixFood Recovery Network. (2016). Food Recovery Network. Retrieved from

http://www.foodrecoverynetwork.org/what-we-do/.

Food Waste Reduction Alliance. (2016). Food Waste Reduction Alliance. Retrieved from http://www.foodwastealliance.org/

Hall, E. W.. (1949). The "Proof" of Utility in Bentham and Mill. Ethics, 60(1), 1–18. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/2378436.

Jacobs, H. (2014). Business Insider: Here's Why Wasted Food Doesn't Get To Poor People. Retrieved from http://www.businessinsider.com/why-dont-some-grocery-stores-donate-food-to-poor-people-2014-10.

J. Brocker, personal communication, February 23, 2016.

Jerauld Cty. v. St. Paul-Mercury Indem. Co., 76 S.D. 1, 7, 71 N.W.2d 571, 574 (1955).

Haley, J. (2013). The Legal Guide to the Bill Emerson Good Samaritan Food Donation Act, University of Arkansas School of Law, Sponsored by the Women's Giving Circle, University of Arkansas.

Kalashian, S., C. (2014). Out of Sight, Out of Mind: Finding A Solution to Food Waste in America, 23 San Joaquin Agric. L. Rev. 103, 107 (2014).

Kant, I. (1785). "First Section: Transition from the Common Rational Knowledge of Morals to the Philosophical," Groundwork of Metaphysic of Morals.

Kwon, S., Bednar, C. M., Kwon, J., & Bush, R. M. (2010). An investigation of college and university foodservice administrators' perceptions of food waste reduction activities and food waste disposal methods. Journal of Foodservice Management & Education, 4(1), 16-21.

Kwon, S. (2009). Investigating food waste management in college and university food service operations (Master’s thesis). Texas Woman’s University, Denton, TX.

Lipp, J., Hafer, D. (2014). What's in the Package: Food, Beverage, and Dietary Supplement Law and Litigation-Part I, Colo. Lawyer Tort and Insurance Law, at 77.

National Resource Defense Counsel, & Harvard Food Law and Policy Clinic. (2013). The Dating Game: How Confusing Labels Land Billions of Pounds of Food In the Trash. NRDC Issue Brief, 1-7. Retrieved from http://www.nrdc.org/food/files/dating-game-IB.pdf.

Massachusetts Institute of Technology. (2016). Massachusetts Institute of Technology: Performance Development. Retrieved from http://hrweb.mit.edu/performance-development/goal-setting-developmental-planning/smart-goals

IMPLEMENTING A FOOD RECOVER PROGRAM lMorenoff, L., D. (2002). Lost Food and Liability: The Good Samaritan Food Donation Law

Story, 57 Food & Drug Law Institute. 107, 107-08.

ReFED. (2016). ReFED: A Roadmap To Reduce U.S. Food Waste By 20 Percent. Retrieved March http://www.refed.com/downloads/ReFED_Report_2016.pdf

Sitton, J. (2011). Stepping up to the Food Recovery Plate, BioCycle 52(3), 44-48.

Sifferlin, A. (2015). Here's How To Cut Down On Food Waste. Retrieved March 10, 2016, from http://time.com/3892206/expiration-dates-food-waste/

Shakman, A. (2013). The Prevention Factor Fresh Look At Zero Food Service Waste, BioCycle 20-22.

Struck, A.N. (2010). Vermillion’s Welcome Table: A set of standard operating procedures for core team leaders, core team members, and serving organizations (Honors thesis).

S.D. Codified Laws § 39-4-22. Donation of food--Immunity from civil and criminal liability.

S.D. Codified Laws § 39-4-23. Distribution of Food Without Charge by Charitable or Nonprofit Organization—Immunity.

S.D. Codified Laws § 39-4-24. Food not readily marketable--Immunity provisions applicable—Regulation.

S.D. Codified Laws § 39-4-25. Definitions.

Taylor, F. W. (1911). The principles of scientific management. New York: Harper & Brothers.

Tellinghuisen, R. A. (1989). [Attorney General Opinion] Re: S.D. Op. Atty. Gen. 99 (S.D.A.G.), 1989 WL 505667-- County funding of nonprofit or charitable organizations for distribution of food assistance to indigent or poor persons pursuant to SDCL ch. 28-13. South Dakota. Attorney General’s Office.

Tucker, M.,T. (2013). Launching A Food Recovery Network, BioCycle 54(1), 35-37.

United States Department of Agriculture. (2011). U.S. Department of Agriculture. Food Safety Information: Food Product Dating, available at http://www.fsis.usda.gov/PDF/Food_Product_Dating.pdf.

The College Sustainability Report Card. (2011). University of South Dakota–Vermillion College Sustainability Report Card 2011. Retrieved March 8, 2016, from http://www.greenreportcard.org/report-card-2011/schools/university-of-south-dakota-vermillion.html

United Nations World Food Programme. (2015). United Nations World Food Programme Hunger Statistics | WFP | United Nations World Food Programme—Fighting Hunger

IMPLEMENTING A FOOD RECOVER PROGRAM liWorldwide. Retrieved, from https://www.wfp.org/hunger/stats

White, D. (2015). Time: French Parliament Unanimously Approves Law to Cut Food Waste. Retrieved March 13, 2016, from http://time.com/4146012/france-food-waste-law/

Worland, J. (2015). U.S. Aims to Cut Food Waste in Half by 2030. Retrieved March 10, 2016, from http://time.com/4037087/food-waste-united-states/

Worland, J. (2016). This Could Be the Best Way to Solve America's Food Waste Problem. Retrieved from http://time.com/4252941/united-states-food-waste-cuts/

World Health Organization. (2012). Retrieved from http://www.who.int/en/ on March 10, 2016.

University of South Dakota. (2016). University of South Dakota: Sustainability Course Offerings. Retrieved from http://www.usd.edu/arts-and-sciences/sustainability/our-philosophy

University of South Dakota Dining. (2016). University of South Dakota Dining: Campus Dining. Retrieved from http://www.usd.edu/student-life/campus-dining

United States Department of Agriculture/Environmental Protection Agency. (2010). Waste Not, Want Not: Feeding the Hungry and Reducing Solid Waste Through Food Recovery. 1-59. Retrieved from nepis.epa.gov.

United Nations. (2016). United Nations Sustainable Development Goals: 17 Goals to Transform Our World. Retrieved from http://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/.

Van Zuiden, H., S. (2012). The Good Food Fight for Good Samaritans: The History of Alleviating Liability and Equalizing Tax Incentives for Food Donors, 17 Drake J. Agric. L. 237.

Appendix ANotes: Committee Recommendation

Pass:_5_ Fail:___ Abstain:_1_Senate ActionPass:_21__ Fail:_0__ Abstain:_2__

Date: March 29, 2016Senate Resolution # 3Introduced by: President SteinlichtCommittee: Supported By: Vice President Novak, Senator Mann, and Rayapalli

IMPLEMENTING A FOOD RECOVER PROGRAM lii

A Resolution Supporting Alleviating Food Insecurity in Vermillion

WHEREAS, food insecurity—when individuals’ access to enough food is limited by a lack of money and other resources—is present in every county in America and an estimated 49 million Americans, or 16.1%, are food insecure, while nearly 100 billion pounds of food go to waste in America annually; and

WHEREAS, in South Dakota one out of every eight individuals is food insecure and in Clay County some 2,190 individuals, 15.7% of the population are food-insecure; and

WHEREAS, in 2014 Feeding Vermillion organizations; the Vermillion Food Pantry fed 5,874 people annually, the Vermillion Weekend Backpack Program served 205 children weekly, and the Vermillion Welcome Table served 150 to 175 individuals weekly; and

WHEREAS, the University of South Dakota and Aramark are committed to partnerships with the campus community supporting socially responsible and sustainable initiatives; and

THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED that the University of South Dakota Student Government Association supports efforts to alleviate food insecurity in Vermillion;

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the University of South Dakota Student Government Association encourages the University of South Dakota Administration and Aramark Food Services to sponsor the implementation of a Coyote Cash donation system at all USD Campus Convenience locations to benefit Feeding Vermillion.

_________________________Nathaniel Steinlicht, President OFFICIAL STAMPUSD Student Government Association

Appendix BNotes: Committee Recommendation

Pass:_5_ Fail:_0_ Abstain:_1_Senate ActionPass:__22_ Fail:__0_ Abstain:_1__

Date: March 29, 2016Senate Resolution # 2Introduced by: President SteinlichtCommittee:Supported By: Vice President Novak, Senator Mann and Rayapalli

IMPLEMENTING A FOOD RECOVER PROGRAM liii

A Resolution Supporting the Implementation of a Food Recovery Plan

WHEREAS, the Bill Emerson Good Samaritan Food Donation Act and SDCL § 39-4-22 encourage food donation from individuals and businesses by reducing the liability of donors who donate food items to non-profit organizations establishing a liability standard for those donating throughout the United States; and

WHEREAS, food recovery is a low-risk, high-benefit way to reduce waste, feed hungry, shrink an enterprise’s environmental footprint, enhance sustainability, reduce costs, provide tax incentives, improve sanitation, build corporate conscience, and enhance community as well as customer perception of the food sector businesses; and

WHEREAS, food insecurity—when individuals’ access to enough food is limited by a lack of money and other resources—is present in every county in America and an estimated 49 million Americans, or 16.1%, are food insecure, while nearly 100 billion pounds of food go to waste in America annually; and

WHEREAS, in South Dakota one out of every eight individuals is food insecure, in Clay County some 2,190 individuals, 15.7% of the population is food-insecure; and

THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED that the University of South Dakota Student Government Association supports Implementation of a Food Recovery Plan;

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the University of South Dakota Student Government Association encourages the University of South Dakota Administration and Aramark Food Services to sponsor the implementation of a food recovery plan at the University of South Dakota to Feeding Vermillion.

_________________________Nathaniel Steinlicht, President OFFICIAL STAMPUSD Student Government Association

Appendix CEffective: October 1, 1996

42 U.S.C.A. § 1791§ 1791. Bill Emerson Good Samaritan Food Donation Act

(a) Short title

This section may be cited as the “Bill Emerson Good Samaritan Food Donation Act”.

IMPLEMENTING A FOOD RECOVER PROGRAM liv(b) Definitions

As used in this section:(1) Apparently fit grocery productThe term “apparently fit grocery product” means a grocery product that meets all quality and labeling standards imposed by Federal, State, and local laws and regulations even though the product may not be readily marketable due to appearance, age, freshness, grade, size, surplus, or other conditions.

(2) Apparently wholesome foodThe term “apparently wholesome food” means food that meets all quality and labeling standards imposed by Federal, State, and local laws and regulations even though the food may not be readily marketable due to appearance, age, freshness, grade, size, surplus, or other conditions.(3) DonateThe term “donate” means to give without requiring anything of monetary value from the recipient, except that the term shall include giving by a nonprofit organization to another nonprofit organization, notwithstanding that the donor organization has charged a nominal fee to the donee organization, if the ultimate recipient or user is not required to give anything of monetary value.(4) FoodThe term “food” means any raw, cooked, processed, or prepared edible substance, ice, beverage, or ingredient used or intended for use in whole or in part for human consumption.(5) GleanerThe term “gleaner” means a person who harvests for free distribution to the needy, or for donation to a nonprofit organization for ultimate distribution to the needy, an agricultural crop that has been donated by the owner.(6) Grocery productThe term “grocery product” means a nonfood grocery product, including a disposable paper or plastic product, household cleaning product, laundry detergent, cleaning product, or miscellaneous household item.(7) Gross negligenceThe term “gross negligence” means voluntary and conscious conduct (including a failure to act) by a person who, at the time of the conduct, knew that the conduct was likely to be harmful to the health or well-being of another person.(8) Intentional misconductThe term “intentional misconduct” means conduct by a person with knowledge (at the time of the conduct) that the conduct is harmful to the health or well-being of another person.(9) Nonprofit organizationThe term “nonprofit organization” means an incorporated or unincorporated entity that--

(A) is operating for religious, charitable, or educational purposes; and(B) does not provide net earnings to, or operate in any other manner that inures to the benefit of, any officer, employee, or shareholder of the entity.

(10) Person

IMPLEMENTING A FOOD RECOVER PROGRAM lvThe term “person” means an individual, corporation, partnership, organization, association, or governmental entity, including a retail grocer, wholesaler, hotel, motel, manufacturer, restaurant, caterer, farmer, and nonprofit food distributor or hospital. In the case of a corporation, partnership, organization, association, or governmental entity, the term includes an officer, director, partner, deacon, trustee, council member, or other elected or appointed individual responsible for the governance of the entity.(c) Liability for damages from donated food and grocery products

(1) Liability of person or gleanerA person or gleaner shall not be subject to civil or criminal liability arising from the nature, age, packaging, or condition of apparently wholesome food or an apparently fit grocery product that the person or gleaner donates in good faith to a nonprofit organization for ultimate distribution to needy individuals.(2) Liability of nonprofit organizationA nonprofit organization shall not be subject to civil or criminal liability arising from the nature, age, packaging, or condition of apparently wholesome food or an apparently fit grocery product that the nonprofit organization received as a donation in good faith from a person or gleaner for ultimate distribution to needy individuals.(3) ExceptionParagraphs (1) and (2) shall not apply to an injury to or death of an ultimate user or recipient of the food or grocery product that results from an act or omission of the person, gleaner, or nonprofit organization, as applicable, constituting gross negligence or intentional misconduct.(d) Collection or gleaning of donationsA person who allows the collection or gleaning of donations on property owned or occupied by the person by gleaners, or paid or unpaid representatives of a nonprofit organization, for ultimate distribution to needy individuals shall not be subject to civil or criminal liability that arises due to the injury or death of the gleaner or representative, except that this paragraph shall not apply to an injury or death that results from an act or omission of the person constituting gross negligence or intentional misconduct.(e) Partial complianceIf some or all of the donated food and grocery products do not meet all quality and labeling standards imposed by Federal, State, and local laws and regulations, the person or gleaner who donates the food and grocery products shall not be subject to civil or criminal liability in accordance with this section if the nonprofit organization that receives the donated food or grocery products--

(1) is informed by the donor of the distressed or defective condition of the donated food or grocery products;(2) agrees to recondition the donated food or grocery products to comply with all the quality and labeling standards prior to distribution; and(3) is knowledgeable of the standards to properly recondition the donated food or grocery product.

(f) ConstructionThis section shall not be construed to create any liability. Nothing in this section shall be construed to supercede State or local health regulations.

IMPLEMENTING A FOOD RECOVER PROGRAM lvi

CREDIT(S)(Pub.L. 89-642, § 22, formerly Pub.L. 101-610, Title IV, § 402, Nov. 16, 1990, 104 Stat. 3183; renumbered § 22, transferred and amended Pub.L. 104-210, § 1(a)(2), (b), Oct. 1, 1996, 110 Stat. 3011, 3012.)42 U.S.C.A. § 1791, 42 USCA § 1791Current through P.L. 114-115 (excluding 114-94 and 114-95) approved 12-28-2015