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 January 20, 2026
Planet Aid is a nonprofit established in 1997 to divert clothes and shoes from the U.S. waste stream and fundraise for community development programs around the world. With thousands of donation bins and centers across the Northeast, Mid-Atlantic and Midwest, Planet Aid’s mission is to inspire positive change by making it easy for donors, partners and communities to take small steps that add up to a big impact. Over three decades, Planet Aid has collected more than two billion pounds of clothes and shoes for reuse. These donations have helped Planet Aid raise more than $100 million to fund community-led projects in the U.S., Africa, Asia, and Latin America. With headquarters just outside Baltimore, MD, Planet Aid serves thousands of communities in 14 states, including New York, New Jersey, Maine, Massachusetts, Connecticut and more. For those without a yellow collection bin or white donation center nearby, they've developed a donation through mail option. By partnering with Give Back Box, you can pack up and mail your donation items directly to their thrift store. This inclusive approach allows them to reach more communities, diverting even more waste that may have gone to a landfill or incinerator. “Planet Aid is excited to join NERC, an organization that shares our goals of minimizing waste, conserving natural resources, and advancing a sustainable economy,” said Uli Stosch, Planet Aid’s Chief Officer of Strategic Development. “We looking forward to collaborating with NERC’s members to help U.S. communities in the Northeast minimize textile waste while maximizing reuse to limit the negative impacts of fast fashion.” NERC is excited to welcome Planet Aid into our growing group of nonprofit members. We look forward to helping share the excellent work they are doing in the NE and around the world. For more information on Planet Aid visit.
By Sophie Leone January 20, 2026
Collaborative Solid Waste Strategies (CSWS) is a New Hampshire based nonprofit committed to improving the waste management landscape in NH and other states. Their work is centered around education, advocacy, and innovation. Educating the public is an essential part of effective waste management, and CSWS has an extensive list of resources on municipal solid waste management, including how to manage materials such as glass, metal, and food waste as well as strategies on how to manage landfills, incineration and more. CSWS is a small but mighty team led by Executive Director Carol Foss. Carol sees Collaborative Solid Waste Strategies as an opportunity to help shape the next stage of evolution for solid waste management in New Hampshire. Her dedicated approach allows CSWS to lead as a strong example in the waste management advocacy field. “CSWS strives to be a catalyst for pragmatic and comprehensive approaches to sustainable solid waste management in New Hampshire.” NERC is thrilled to welcome CSWS as members. As a fellow nonprofit, we understand how important their voice and presence are within our industry, and we look forward to collaborating with them and working to achieve our shared goals. For more information on Collaborative Solid Waste Strategies visit.
By Chaz Miller January 5, 2026
2025 was not a good year for recycling markets. Prices went down for everything in your bin. The only real difference is how badly each material got hit and why. Let’s start with paper, the most important recyclable in terms of weight and volume. Old Corrugated Container (OCC, boxes) prices started rising in the spring of 2023, peaking for several months in the summer of 2024. A long slide then began and lasted for almost all of 2025. Prices for Residential Mixed Paper (RMP) did the same. Nationally, OCC is now at $46.88 per ton and RMP is $20.31 a ton. OCC went down by a third while RMP went down by half. The “good” news is that these prices have been lower in the last five years. RMP, after all, had a negative value early in 2020 and then for a few months in late 2022. (All prices in this article are national prices from RecyclingMarkets.net as of December 31). The 2023 rise and then fall of recycled paper prices was the result of increased capacity to use OCC and RMP as raw materials along with declining overall demand for boxes. New recycled content paper capacity started coming online in 2017, peaking in 2023 when five new mills opened. Those new mills, eager to build up supply lines, caused prices to go up. Existing capacity had no choice but to also pay more. At the same time, demand for new boxes was going down. In fact, box demand has been going down for four years. Something had to give. In 2025, nine existing paper mills announced they would be closing. Old, more expensive, and less efficient to operate, they couldn’t compete with the new mills. All four plastic resins lost value but the impact varied by resin. Natural HDPE, (mostly milk jugs) lost a third of its value. Polypropylene (mostly dairy products) went down by 40 percent. Color HDPE (consumer products such as detergent and shampoo) went down by 48 percent and PET beverage bottles went down by two thirds. Natural HDPE is 46.81 cents a pound. Even at the lower price, this resin remains in a good price range. PET and polypropylene are both 5.38 cents a pound. Recycled PET rose steadily from the summer of 2023 to the summer of 2024. Then it declined equally steadily until it reached a record low of 4.19 cents in early October of this year. Cheap recycled resin imports, too much domestic virgin PET resin and lower summer beverage demand gave prices nowhere to go but down. Recycled PET resin imports are now subject to tariffs, which may be responsible for its recent increase. Nonetheless, its price remains in the doldrums. Polypropylene generally has a low price except when new capacity is coming online and building up capacity. For 46 of the 72 months since January 2020, its price has been less than a dime a pound. For 17 months, it’s been at its current not very good price or less. Color HDPE is 2.81 cents a pound. This resin depends on construction markets because the color can’t be taken out of the resin. New housing starts have been in decline for four years. It also set a record low price in 2025. Aluminum and steel cans are recycling market’s happy place. Their prices went down by 9.3 and 8.7 percent. Aluminum cans have a national average price of 78.75 cents while steel cans go for $158.75 a ton. Over the last few years, the aluminum industry smartly expanded into non-alcoholic beverages such as water and fruit juices. Those new uses keep demand up. After sliding last year, steel can prices stabilized. As for glass, it’s price rarely changes. Clear glass bottles go for $38.56 a ton, brown for $27.19 and green for $10.31. Those prices all rose slightly in the spring of 2023. Mixed glass from single stream curbside collection has a “negative tipping fee” of $25.31 a ton. In other words, the MRF pays the end market to buy it. That price became slightly more negative this year. The glass industry has been in decline for some time, a victim of lighter weight aluminum cans and plastic bottles. In addition, Americans are drinking less alcohol. That’s the biggest user of glass bottles. Our beleaguered economy is hurting recycling markets. Recyclables are just raw materials looking for a buyer. Those buyers are purchasing managers making a bet on how much raw materials they will need for their companies’ products. This can be, say, aluminum cans, boxes to ship those empty cans to beverage companies or boxes to deliver filled cans to retail outlets. When buyers are optimistic, they buy more. In 2025, they were gloomy. Prices of all of these recyclables have been hurt by declining unit sales of consumer products and the resulting decline in box demand. We are in a “ K-shaped” economic recovery from the pandemic. This means the recovery’s impact varied by economic status. Wealthy households now account for half of consumer spending on goods and services. They spend more on “services” such as trips and entertainment than on goods. Lower income households, however, are squeezed between paying for necessities such as housing, health care, insurance and food before everything else. They are pinching their nickels and looking for bargains. Simply stated, due to the K-shaped recovery, sales are down and we need fewer packages and shipping boxes. So what will happen in 2026? The loss of so much older paper capacity is bringing demand and supply back into a better balance. Look for prices to rebound a bit. Plastic prices will remain soft barring a reversal of the K-shaped recovery. PET prices, have the most potential if beverage demand returns. Color HDPE, will remain in the doldrums until new housing construction increases. Natural HDPE will stay where it is or go up a bit. Polypropylene will probably stay where it is. As for glass, change isn’t likely. I realize that’s not optimistic. Given the projected rise in health, insurance and energy costs this year, Americans will still be pinching pennies. Box production will decline as unit sales fall. Our K-shaped economy needs to become a rising economic tide lifting all boats. Recyclables, afterall, are commodities subject to the economy’s ups and downs. When our economy truly rebounds, recycling markets will thrive again. Read on Waste360.