There was actually quite a heated debate on this during the New Deal in the 1930s, where federal regulations and federal public works projects were often scoped

There was actually quite a heated debate on this during the New Deal in the 1930s, where federal regulations and federal public works projects were often scoped to have highly localized impacts. Wickard v. Filburn, for instance, upheld in 1942 that the federal government could use the Commerce Clause to regulate even a single farmer's output, on the basis that its impact on pricing, viewed in the aggregate, could affect interstate commerce: https://www.oyez.org/cases/1940-1955/317us111 https://www.oyez.org/cases/1940-1955/317us111 And in this Rhode Island situation, Congress did indeed authorize this exact type of highly-localized program: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/7438 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/7438 If the federal government wants to use its resources to reduce food waste, in service of a nationwide fiscal policy to allow household funds that would otherwise go towards food waste to re-enter the economy, that's arguably largely within its purview. Because there's no national infrastructure or standards, action has to begin locally, if this is indeed the goal. This interstate commercial framing, in fact, was at the center of the first Trump administration's food waste initiatives, which laid the groundwork for this program: https://www.wastedive.com/news/trump-administration-unveils-winning-strategies-for-us-food-waste-problem/553001/ https://www.wastedive.com/news/trump-administration-unveils-... > “In one sense, this is a problem derived from America’s incredible achievements in agriculture and technology,” said [Trump's] EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler at an April 9 [2019] event, going on to recount a story about former Russian President Boris Yeltsin’s surprise when he saw the bounty of a Texas grocery store in 1989. “Together, we can promote American prosperity and turn wasted food into solutions that can feed America’s communities, fuel our economy and maximize our resources.” Whether or not specific pilot programs like the one mentioned in OP are the optimal way to implement that goal, of course, is a different question entirely. But at least they were trying to start somewhere. (Not a lawyer, this is not legal advice.)