By embracing a diversified infrastructure strategy—one that combines centralized facilities with distributed solutions—the U.S. can move closer to capturing the vast majority of food waste currently lost to landfills.
By Christy Hurlburt
Food waste diversion is no longer a fringe sustainability initiative. It is rapidly becoming a core component of waste management policy across the U.S. As mandates and market demand accelerates, the nation’s food waste processing infrastructure has not kept pace.
Today, the U.S. generates an estimated 80 million tons of food waste annually, but only about 10 percent is currently processed through composting or other recovery pathways. Even if all food waste were diverted from landfills tomorrow, the infrastructure simply does not exist to handle it. This growing mismatch between ambition and capacity is forcing the industry to rethink how, where, and at what scale food waste is processed.
The path forward will not rely on a single solution. Instead, a multi-pronged approach combining policy reform, localized technologies, and creative financing will be required to close the infrastructure gap and make food waste diversion viable nationwide.
On paper, the U.S. composting industry appears robust, with more than 5,000 composting sites nationwide. In practice, however, only a small fraction of these facilities accept food waste. According to industry data, fewer than 450 composting sites currently process food scraps, leaving vast regions of the country without reasonable access.
Images courtesy of Viably.
The reasons are well known. Large composting facilities require significant capital investment, lengthy permitting processes, and land resources that are increasingly difficult to secure. Environmental concerns, zoning restrictions, community opposition, and topographical limitations further complicate siting efforts, particularly in rural and mountainous regions.
Even where facilities do exist, long hauling distances often undermine the environmental and economic benefits of diversion. In many regions, food waste is transported 50 to 100 miles to reach a processing site, adding cost, emissions, and logistical complexity.
Policy Issues
State and municipal policy has become a primary driver of food waste diversion, but policy approaches vary widely, each with distinct advantages and drawbacks. States like California have adopted mandatory organics diversion policies that require jurisdictions to provide access to food waste collection. These programs have dramatically expanded participation and accelerated infrastructure deployment. However, they often rely on existing hauling and processing networks, which can result in multiple handling steps, long transport distances, and contamination challenges when education and enforcement lag behind rollout.
At the other end of the spectrum are voluntary programs that allow residents and businesses to opt into food waste collection. These systems tend to attract highly motivated participants, resulting in lower contamination and smoother operations. However, voluntary models struggle with route density, equitable access, and scalability—particularly in communities without nearby composting facilities.
Some states are experimenting with hybrid approaches. New York, for example, requires large food waste generators to divert organics only if a processing facility is located within a defined radius. This policy targets the highest-volume generators while limiting long-haul transport, offering a more balanced framework that aligns infrastructure availability with regulatory requirements.
Beyond organics mandates, policymakers have additional tools at their disposal. Reclassifying food waste as a recyclable material, fast-tracking permits for organics facilities, dedicating public land for processing sites, and treating food waste infrastructure as an economic development opportunity can all accelerate progress.
Localized Food 91²Ö¿â Processing
Even with supportive policy, infrastructure expansion takes time. Large-scale composting facilities cannot be built fast enough to capture the estimated 90 percent of food waste currently going unprocessed. This reality has created space for localized, distributed processing technologies to play a complementary role.
The food waste sector is increasingly drawing parallels to the energy industry. Just as centralized power plants are now supplemented by rooftop solar, microgrids, and distributed generation, centralized composting facilities can be supplemented by small-footprint, modular processing systems located closer to where waste is generated.
These systems are not intended to replace large composting operations. Instead, they serve as gap-fillers, enabling diversion in locations where traditional infrastructure is unavailable, impractical, or cost-prohibitive. Localized food waste processing technologies are gaining traction across a range of applications, including:
• Warehouses and distribution centers
• Transfer stations and landfills
• Commercial kitchens and institutions
• Community composting hubs
• Rural and hard-to-access service areas
One emerging food waste processing technology is waterless biodigestion, which addresses a key regulatory concern associated with earlier onsite technologies: the discharge of food waste effluent into sewer systems. By eliminating wastewater discharge and relying on controlled biological processes, these systems align more closely with environmental compliance requirements, including odor mitigation.
Typical operation involves introducing food waste into a sealed chamber where microbes, heat, airflow, and mechanical rotation accelerate decomposition. The result is 75 percent reduction in weight and volume within a 24-hour timeframe, producing a stable, nutrient-rich fertilizer output suitable for soil amendment or blending into compost.
In-vessel composting systems, which have evolved over the last 20 years, also offer a reduced footprint for local operations. These systems take both food waste and yard waste created compost and are able to optimize the process by controlling air flow and applying mechanical agitation. The primary process of breakdown is accelerated, and volume reduction is achieved. The secondary curing phase can take place locally or offsite if needed.
For all localized systems, incorporating small-scale depackaging and separation technologies upstream can increase revenue and increase compliance with state mandates as facilities are able to capture more food waste.
As food waste collection expands, contamination remains one of the industry’s most persistent challenges. Plastics, packaging, and microplastics can compromise compost quality and downstream markets.
Localized processing systems can help mitigate these risks by reducing the number of handling and transfer points. When employees see the food being processed and are able to touch and feel the output material, they are more likely to separate contamination out. Processing food waste closer to the source also allows operators to work more directly with generators, improving education and reducing contamination at the point of disposal.
In regions where localized processing has been deployed, circular economy principles are becoming more tangible. Food waste collected from homes and businesses can be processed locally, with the resulting soil products returned to nearby farms, landscapes, or community projects. The food grown with those inputs then re-enters the local economy, completing the loop.
While these systems will never replace the throughput of large composting facilities, they can play a critical role in capturing material that would otherwise remain landfilled, particularly in underserved or logistically challenging areas.
Accessible Financing
Technology alone will not solve the food waste challenge without accessible financing. Traditionally, food waste infrastructure has been funded through a mix of debt financing, private equity, venture capital, and grants, each with trade-offs related to cost, control, and scalability.
Looking ahead, there is growing interest in revolving loan funds modeled after water and wastewater infrastructure financing. These funds, often administered by states or nonprofits, provide low-cost capital for public infrastructure projects. As projects generate revenue, loans are repaid and recycled into new investments.
Applying this model to localized food waste processing could lower barriers to entry for municipalities and small operators, accelerate deployment of modular systems, and create a self-sustaining funding mechanism for organics infrastructure. Such approaches would require collaboration between policymakers, financiers, and industry stakeholders, but they offer a promising path to scale.
Evolving Infrastructure
Demand for food waste diversion continues to grow, driven by consumer expectations, corporate sustainability goals, and regulatory pressure. At the same time, haulers and processors are grappling with rising costs, labor shortages, and uneven access to infrastructure. Localized food waste processing offers a way to:
• Reduce transportation costs and emissions
• Improve service to rural and remote routes
• Maximize use of existing facilities and real estate
• Expand diversion without waiting for large-scale builds
For the industry, this moment represents both a challenge and an opportunity. By embracing a diversified infrastructure strategy—one that combines centralized facilities with distributed solutions—the U.S. can move closer to capturing the vast majority of food waste currently lost to landfills.
Solving the food waste problem will require more than ambition. It will require alignment between policy, technology, and financing, along with a willingness to rethink long-standing assumptions about scale and siting.
Localized food waste processing is not a silver bullet—but it is an essential tool in the broader toolbox. As infrastructure continues to evolve, the facilities and communities that succeed will be those willing to meet food waste where it is, rather than where traditional systems expect it to be. | WA
Christy Hurlburt is the Director of Product for Viably, a distributor of compost, food waste, and recycling equipment. She works with Viably’s depackaging and waterless biodigester solutions. Christy has worked with municipal clients to help them achieve compliance with SB 1383 legislation. She was the VP of Marketing for Enevo, a waste services, bin sensor, and routing software provider. Christy also managed Cascadia Consulting’s corporate sustainability practice helping clients with the planning and implementation of their waste reduction and zero-waste goals. She is on the People and Environment Helene Recovery Board and the Sustainability Advisory Committee for the City of Asheville and part of WNC Food 91²Ö¿â Solutions. Christy can be reached at (415) 515-3280 or e-mail [email protected].