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

Bethlehem First Selectman Provides Update on Disposal of Tires at Transfer Station

By Nancy Dzija Vaughan | Prime Publishers • August 12, 2026
BETHLEHEM – First Selectman Raymond Butkus provided an update to the Board of Selectmen last Tuesday that included an announcement regarding the disposal of tires at the transfer station. Mr. Butkus said the CT Tire Stewardship program has gone into effect, According to the Northeast Recycling Council website, “the Connecticut Tire Stewardship (CTS) is the nonprofit organization responsible for implementing Connecticut’s Tire Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) program. Working with municipal transfer stations, tire retailers, auto shops, car dealerships, and other collection partners, CTS helps ensure discarded tires are responsibly collected, recycled, and put to beneficial new uses.” The website goes on to state, “Approximately 3.5 million tires reach the end of their useful life in Connecticut each year. Through its statewide Roll Recycle Renew program, CTS provides residents with free tire recycling opportunities while giving municipalities a practical solution for managing scrap tires. By making responsible disposal more accessible, the program helps reduce illegal dumping, protect waterways and natural resources, and keep tires out of landfills.” Mr. Butkus said town residents will now be able to bring most tires to the town transfer at no cost. Tires will be accepted both on and off the rim. The exception is large tractor tires, tires for construction equipment, or excessively dirty tires. These tires will still ne accepted, however, there will be a fee for disposal. Mr. Butkus also reported that he held a meeting last week regarding the rewiring of the computer equipment at Town Hall. The project is expected to begin this week and will likely be completed by August 20. A new monitor has been located in the hallway of Town Hall. This monitor will be used to display a list of upcoming meetings along with announcements and photographs. Read on Prime Publishers .

NERC releases new policy guide to advance sustainable materials management

By Erin Finan | Recycling Today • August 12, 2026
The Northeast Recycling Council (NERC) has released its 2026 Northeast States Policy Guide, a new regional resource that provides a comprehensive comparison of sustainable materials management policies across 11 states in the Northeastern U.S. “The guide serves as an excellent primer for state and industry stakeholders looking to learn about the various policy frameworks enacted across the Northeast and how they have been applied,” says NERC President Michael Nork, who also works as an environmental analyst for the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services. Developed through a standardized survey of state government agencies, NERC says the guide serves as a practical reference for policymakers, municipal leaders, industry professionals and researchers looking to navigate and compare policies related to waste reduction, reuse, recycling and circular economy initiatives. The publication includes both regional policy analyses and detailed state profiles covering product bans, product stewardship (including extended producer responsibility), minimum postconsumer recycled content requirements, mandatory recycling laws and disposal bans. “This resource provides high-level insight into materials of interest that the Northeast has focused on managing for decades,” says Shannon McDonald, director at Maryland Department of the Environment in the Waste Diversion Division. “For a regulatory agency, specific resources that provide clear examples of replicable or considerable policy and management strategies are useful tools—having them in one place is even more valuable.” The guide compiles state-level data across Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island and Vermont to highlight core regional policy trends, including: regional policy prevalence-- Regulatory frameworks are established across the region, with 10 of 11 states using product stewardship programs, 10 enforcing disposal bans and nine maintaining mandatory recycling laws; broadest state coverage -- Maine and Vermont regulate the widest variety of items in the region, 20 and 21, respectively, followed closely by New Jersey at 19 categories; top regulated materials -- Electronics are the most widely addressed material (regulated by 10 states), followed by mercury thermostats (9 states), tires (8 states), as well as paint, rechargeable batteries, beverage containers, fluorescent lighting, lead-acid batteries, mercury-added products and yard waste (7 states); funding and mechanism structures -- Among the region’s product stewardship programs, 47 percent are producer-funded, 15 percent rely on consumer point-of-sale eco-fees, 5 percent combine producer and consumer fees and 33 percent utilize alternative measures such as labeling, recyclability standards or disclosure requirements; and regulatory gaps and emerging opportunities -- Significant policy gaps exist in rapidly growing clean-energy waste streams. Currently, only one state addresses electric vehicle (EV) batteries, and zero states have statewide policy programs for solar panels. Unfilled coverage areas present opportunities for cross-state collaboration, policy alignment and regional innovation. By presenting data in a standardized format for each state, the guide enables stakeholders to easily compare regional policy approaches, identify coverage gaps and adapt regulatory models. “By standardizing how we measure product stewardship, PCR [postconsumer recyclables] mandates and disposal bans across all 11 states, this guide allows state leaders to quickly identify where their policies align with neighbors and where transferable models already exist,” says Mariane Medeiros, director of strategic engagement and sustainability programs at NERC. “With 10 of 11 states enforcing stewardship programs and disposal bans, the region has proven its ability to manage complex products. The next frontier is applying that same collaborative momentum to rapidly growing clean-energy waste streams like solar panels and EV batteries.” Read on Recycling Today.

NERC Releases New Northeast States Policy Guide to Advance Sustainable Materials Management Across the Region

By Mariane Medeiros • August 6, 2026
The Northeast Recycling Council (NERC) is pleased to announce the release of the 2026 Northeast States Policy Guide , a new regional resource that provides a comprehensive comparison of sustainable materials management policies across eleven Northeast states. “The guide serves as an excellent primer for state and industry stakeholders looking to learn about the various policy frameworks enacted across the northeast and how they have been applied,” said NERC President, Michael Nork, Environmental Analyst, New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services. Developed through a standardized survey of state government agencies, the guide serves as a practical reference for policymakers, municipal leaders, industry professionals, and researchers seeking to navigate and compare policies related to waste reduction, reuse, recycling, and circular economy initiatives. The publication includes both regional policy analyses and detailed state profiles covering product bans, product stewardship (including Extended Producer Responsibility), minimum post-consumer recycled content requirements, mandatory recycling laws, and disposal bans. “This resource provides high level insight into materials of interest that the Northeast has focused on managing for decades. For a regulatory agency, specific resources that provide clear examples of replicable or considerable policy and management strategies are useful tools--having them in one place is even more valuable,” said Shannon McDonald, Waste Diversion Division, Director at Maryland Department of the Environment. Key Findings The guide aggregates state-level data across Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Vermont to highlight core regional policy trends: Regional Policy Prevalence: Regulatory frameworks are widely established across the region, with 10 of 11 states using product stewardship programs, 10 enforcing disposal bans, and 9 maintaining mandatory recycling laws. Broadest State Coverage: Maine and Vermont regulate the widest variety of items in the region, 20 and 21, respectively, distinct material categories through state policies, followed closely by New Jersey at 19 categories. Top Regulated Materials: Electronics are the most widely addressed material (regulated by 10 states), followed by mercury thermostats (9 states), tires (8 states), followed by paint, rechargeable batteries, beverage containers, fluorescent lighting, lead-acid batteries, mercury-added products and yard waste (7 states). Funding & Mechanism Structures: Among the region’s product stewardship programs, 47% are producer-funded, 15% rely on consumer point-of-sale eco-fees, 5% combine producer and consumer fees, and 33% utilize alternative measures such as labeling, recyclability standards, or disclosure requirements. Regulatory Gaps & Emerging Opportunities: Significant policy gaps exist in rapidly growing clean-energy waste streams. Currently, only 1 state addresses electric vehicle (EV) batteries, and zero states have statewide policy programs for solar panels. Unfilled coverage areas present distinct opportunities for cross-state collaboration, policy alignment, and regional innovation. By presenting data in a standardized format for each state, the guide enables stakeholders to easily compare regional policy approaches, identify coverage gaps, and adapt proven regulatory models. "By standardizing how we measure product stewardship, PCR mandates, and disposal bans across all eleven states, this guide allows state leaders to quickly identify where their policies align with neighbors and where transferrable models already exist," said Mariane Medeiros, Director of Strategic Engagement and Sustainability Programs at NERC. "With 10 of 11 states enforcing stewardship programs and disposal bans, the region has proven its ability to manage complex products. The next frontier is applying that same collaborative momentum to rapidly growing clean-energy waste streams like solar panels and EV batteries." Alyssa Eiklor, Board Member and Environmental Analyst at Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation, cited: “The NERC Policy Guide provides a valuable comparison of the similarities and differences in how northeastern states use policies as a tool for waste management. It also serves as a convenient short cut for linking directly to the policies.” The full 2026 Northeast States Policy Guide is available for download at: https://www.nerc.org/state-policy-guide About NERC The Northeast Recycling Council, Inc. (NERC) is a multi-state nonprofit organization committed to minimizing waste, conserving natural resources, and advancing a sustainable economy through collaboration and action. NERC's eleven member states and advisory members work together to address sustainable materials management challenges and promote solutions across the Northeast region.