Food Lost on the Farm: Empirical Data and Good Ideas

July 3, 2018

July 3, 2018



Today’s Guest Blog is by Christine Grillo. It was originally posted on the Johns Hopkins Center for a Livable Future Blog on May 25, 2018.

Let’s imagine we’re at a vegetable farm in rural Vermont. The weather has been so perfect this year for growing carrots, spinach and squash that our farmer can’t harvest everything she’s grown. She won’t want to risk the expense of harvesting and transporting the veggies that retailers won’t buy because they look a little funny; she won’t be able to sell them if the markets are saturated; and she may not be able to find affordable farm labor to help her pick the crops and get them to their destinations. Some of those veggies bursting with nutrients and fiber will go uneaten, becoming part of what we call “on-farm food loss.”


Now let’s visit the home of a family suffering from food insecurity. Perhaps an elderly couple isn’t getting quite enough to eat. Or maybe an older teen is skipping meals so his younger sister can have more. In Vermont there are about 80,000 people in these circumstances, and the state provides more than 19 million institutional meals every year. These meals are made from food grown outside of the state and purchased with Vermont dollars, flown or trucked in from thousands of miles away.


Getting those nutrient-dense veggies onto the plates of the food insecure—as well as onto the cafeteria trays at public schools, nursing homes, hospitals and detention facilities—seems like it would be a win-win. The surplus crops grown in Vermont could replace some of the food grown outside the state and shipped in. In Vermont, top crops include not only carrots, spinach and squash but also potatoes, blueberries, strawberries and raspberries. What if some of that food lost on the farm could be recovered and re-directed onto people’s plates? What if farmers could be compensated for that food, instead of turning it into (expensive) compost?


Vermont is not the only state with this conundrum. Re-thinking on-farm food loss in Vermont could provide valuable clues for other states with similar situations.


In the quest for the win-win, Salvation Farms in Morrisville has produced the first empirical data on farm-level food loss in New England. Using a survey to collect data, it quantifies on-farm losses and investigates reasons for the losses. One finding shows that in Vermont 16 percent of vegetables and 15 percent of berries were considered lost but salvageable in 2015.


Theresa Snow, executive director of Salvation Farms, conducted the study with input from 58 farmers representing all counties in Vermont. “Farmers are busy!” said Snow. “But they’re happy to provide perspective if it shows there could be an ultimate benefit to their business by providing input.”


In a research paper published this week in The Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems and Community Development, “Salvageable Food Losses from Vermont Farms,” lead author Roni Neff, PhD, and program director at the Johns Hopkins Center for a Livable Future, suggests that this quantification can help identify strategies and motivate action. “There is a remarkable gap in data on waste and loss of food on farms in the US,” she said. “This study provides the first such data for Vermont and shares a relatively easy to use 4-question tool Salvation Farms created for estimating waste and loss from farms.”


Neff notes that this study’s findings may be especially applicable to other areas with many small- to midscale farms, although the tremendous variety of crops, environments, farm types and markets in Vermont may make generalization challenging.

In addition to gathering data, several stakeholders in Vermont—Salvation Farms, Vermont Farm to Plate, the Vermont Agency for Agriculture and others—are working toward creating a Vermont Surplus Crop Management Plan. The goal of the plan is to get the excess food to humans who will eat it.


According to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), on-farm food loss comprises about 16 percent of all the wasted food in the United States, although this estimate is based on minimal data. And according to the team’s paper, which used data from the Salvation Farms report, the biggest reasons for on-farm food loss are aesthetics (for example, the berries are blemished and retailers think people won’t buy them), demand fluctuations and market saturation (more berries than people can eat!), and labor availability and costs (can’t find farmworkers or can’t afford them). The paper acknowledges that there will always be some on-farm food loss. But it can be reduced, which, as the paper suggests, is the first priority.


Both Snow and Neff note that compensation for farmers is essential to reducing on-farm losses. If food is to be donated to food banks or similar programs, the farmer may be expected to harvest, package and transport it, which is expensive. Federal tax deductions for donated food are a small incentive for donating surplus crops, especially if the expenses associated with donating are not matched by tax savings. Snow believes farmers would be more incentivized by payments from the state or an opening up of new markets. Gleaning and food rescue programs, in which volunteers come onto the farm and do their own harvesting and transporting, offer farmers a way to have their excess crops eaten without incurring a lot of extra expense; unfortunately, the amounts gathered are often small in comparison to the loss. Experienced farmworkers can be even more effective at preventing on-farm food loss.


In farming, there will always be some degree of loss and waste (or some degree of deficit). But, as Neff suggests, if more entities across the US do as Salvation Farms has done—gathering empirical data—more food-system and supply-chain interventions become possible.

Christine Grillo is a Contributing Writer at Johns Hopkins Center for a Livable Future (CLF). She joined CLF in 2011 and writes about food system thinking—the intersection of food systems and public health. The work of the Center for a Livable Future is driven by the concept that public health, diet, food production and the environment are deeply interrelated and that understanding these relationships is crucial in pursuing a livable future. The article is reposted under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike license.

NERC welcomes Guest Blog submissions. To inquire about submitting articles contact Athena Lee Bradley, Projects Manager at athena(at)nerc.org. Disclaimer: Guest blogs represent the opinion of the writers and may not reflect the policy or position of the Northeast Recycling Council, Inc.


For more information on Salvation Farms, see NERC’s Blog Fresh Produce Recovery Models and the Building Resiliency in Food Recovery webinar presentation by Theresa Snow and webinar recording.

Share Post

By Sophie Leone • September 24, 2026
The American Chemistry Council’s Plastics Division represents America’s Plastic Makers and the hundreds of thousands of scientists, engineers and technicians who develop plastics essential to modern life. From healthcare and clean energy to transportation and safe food and water, plastics drive innovation and strengthen the U.S. economy by supporting key industries and creating well-paying jobs. Companies are investing billions annually in U.S. production and recycling, advancing manufacturing and efficiency across economic sectors. We envision a future where all plastic products are reused or recycled, conserving resources and creating a cleaner, safer and more resilient world. Ross Eisenberg, president of America’s Plastic Makers at ACC said “we’re committed to ending plastic waste and advancing a circular economy for plastics, because frankly, we need plastics and modern life does rely on them.” NERC is excited to welcome the American Chemistry Council Plastics Division. We look forward to supporting their mission of advocacy for people and policy. For more information on ACC visit .
By Arlene Karidis | Waste360 • September 14, 2026
A new report on glass recycling in the Northeast shows that while a few front-running states have unlocked high recovery rates, there is plenty of room for the rest of the region to grow. To replicate the top achievements and scale up, the region must invest heavily in collection systems, processing infrastructure, and end-market development, according to the Northeast Recycling Council (NERC) study. A new report on glass recycling in the Northeast shows that while a few front-running states have unlocked high recovery rates, there is plenty of room for the rest of the region to grow. To replicate the top achievements and scale up, the region must invest heavily in collection systems, processing infrastructure, and end-market development, according to the Northeast Recycling Council (NERC) study. Read on to discover which states are leading the pack, where they excel, which regions are lagging, and what key industry and government insiders say about this evolving landscape. Some key findings: Vermont and Connecticut recycled the most glass containers relative to total waste generated. Connecticut led the region in per capita glass collection. New York State collected the greatest total tonnage of glass containers for recycling. Five Northeast states operate deposit return systems that include glass beverage containers. All Northeast states offer residential curbside and/or drop-off recycling programs. Vermont and Connecticut's standout glass container recovery rates are about 79.9% and 77.0%, respectively, with a common denominator being that they both operate deposit return systems (DRS) for these containers. They join a larger group whose recycling success is largely attributed to DRS programs. The Glass Packaging Institute reports that these states recover up to triple the glass captured in commingled streams, yielding more clean cullet for new containers than can be used. New York ranks as the top glass recycler with over 281,000 tons annually, followed by New Jersey at about 197,000 tons. With a population of nearly 8.6 million, New York City is the state’s largest municipality by far and plays a heavy-lifting role in driving up those statewide recovery numbers. Joshua Goodman, deputy commissioner, NYC Department of Sanitation (DSNY), says the key to healthy citywide participation has been keeping recycling simple and universal. “We pick up from every residence in the city – high-rise, low-rise, and single-family homes – and no one has to guess whether a particular piece of glass is recyclable – we take it all,” Goodman says. Building on residential success, DSNY is exploring targeting glass from construction waste next, a key strategy outlined in the draft 2026 Solid Waste Management Plan. While every Northeast state offers curbside and/or drop-off glass collection, their systems vary widely. They range from the DRS schemes like in Vermont and Connecticut to source-separated drop-off programs and, in some Pennsylvania communities, source-separated curbside collection. These system differences, along with reporting differences, complicate cross-state performance comparisons, underscoring the need for better data consistency and transparency, the authors say. To address these issues, NERC convenes a Glass Committee—a diverse group of stakeholders—regulators, municipalities, and glass processors among others—who help member states in standardizing tracking practices. “By engaging in projects through our [glass] committee, states can find paths to implement new programs or means of data collection,” says Megan Schulz-Fontes, executive director, Northeast Recycling Council. The organization is focusing on multiple areas with ambitions to strengthen the system. “Right now, we're working on developing resources and tools to support actors across the value chain in removing inefficient redundancies in collection and processing, developing a cleaner stream of recycled glass for long-term economic benefits, and identifying existing or emerging end markets for specific supply streams,” Schulz-Fontes says. New England holds the greatest promise for growth. Between municipal collections and bottle bills, the region generates massive volumes of recyclable glass. “We have made great strides in alternative end markets such as glass pozzolan [a sustainable replacement for cement in concrete]. “But what’s missing is dedicated processing facilities that clean and sort glass to achieve the necessary quality for new bottles. Historically, New England had these facilities. But, today, curbside glass often must be hauled hundreds of miles out of state just to reach a beneficiation plant,” Schulz-Fontes says, adding that re-establishing New England’s processing capacity will be a key lever to scaling glass recycling, regionwide. The idea is to eliminate long-distance transport costs, slash emissions, and keep the full lifecycle of bottle recycling local. Housatonic Resources Recovery Authority (HRRA) is working to take its Connecticut-based corner of New England further. The HRRA runs a regional glass-separation recycling program across 14 municipalities, serving roughly 265,000 residents. Since the initiative's 2019 launch, the authority has collected and sent over 2,000 tons of source-separated glass on for processing. Jennifer A. Heaton-Jones, executive director, Housatonic Resources Recovery Authority, points to another program plus. The operation has improved the quality of the whole mixed recycling stream by reducing glass contamination in paper, cardboard, and other recyclables. This helps increase the value of recyclable commodities and supports a more efficient recycling system overall, she says. Leadership credits the program's success largely to transparency and resident education. “We focused on helping residents understand what happens to glass when it is placed in a mixed recycling bin and why separating it creates better environmental and economic outcomes. “Once they learned that much of the glass collected through mixed recycling was not being recycled back into new bottles and jars due to contamination issues, they were very willing to change their behavior,” Heaton-Jones observes. The partnership with local glass recyclers helps—it is giving residents visible proof that their glass is being transformed to new products. “When people know their efforts make a measurable difference, participation follows,” she says. Casella processes approximately 100,000 tons of glass annually across Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Pennsylvania, and Vermont. According to Jeff Weld, the company’s vice president of communications, they have access to several viable end markets. He cites bottle-to-bottle recycling, fiberglass manufacturing, processed glass aggregate, and additives for concrete and other construction applications. Building a diverse network of regional outlets has been a key strategy. Because glass is heavy and carries a lower commodity value, regional processing is essential to cutting transportation distances and keeping processing costs manageable, Weld says. That’s what’s most needed, he advises—more local and regional outlets to make logistics more efficient while improving the long-term economics and resiliency of glass recycling. In the broader picture, economic factors favor glass recycling, according to market research platform Worldmetric’s data . Nationwide, U.S. recycling costs $35 to $50 per ton while landfilling costs $20 to $30, according to Worldmetric’s 2026 report. The authors cite a national selling price of $80 to $100 per ton and claim recycled content saves manufacturers $10 to $15 per ton. But regional realities paint a more nuanced picture. NERC’s market value figures for the Northeast show the region faces a tighter squeeze, other than for clear glass, likely attributed to the referenced processing challenges compounded by single-stream contamination. Just the same, opportunities exist across the region. But closing the loop will require a dual approach: building robust, updated infrastructure and aggressively driving the long-term market demand to sustain it. Read on Waste360.
By Sophie Leone • August 25, 2026
Circular Action Alliance (CAA) was founded in 2022 and is a U.S. Producer Responsibility Organization (PRO). As a PRO they are dedicated to the implementation of effective Extended Producer Responsibility laws for paper and packaging. CAA operates as the single PRO in California, Colorado, Maryland, Minnesota, Oregon and Washington. Additionally, they are the only organization that is approved to implement U.S. EPR laws for paper and packaging. CAA's dedicated and important work is built off a comprehensive list of strategic operating principles. These principles include delivering cost effective services, supporting and incentivizing innovation in packaging design, supporting responsible end markets, and enhancing the collection of covered materials. CAA not only works with the producers but with the greater industry as well, providing free webinars, public resources, state updates, and more. "We're excited to join NERC and contribute to its long legacy of regional collaboration," said Bridget Anderson, Director of Emerging States at Circular Action Alliance. "As we implement EPR programs in multiple states, organizations like NERC help us better understand regional nuances and trends in the recycling system." NERC is excited to welcome the Circular Action Alliance. As a fellow non-profit, we look forward to supporting their growing impact and the important work they do with EPR. For more information on CAA visit.