United States Department of Agriculture

Economic Drivers of Food Loss at the 

Farm and Pre-Retail Sectors: 

A Look at the Produce Supply Chain 

in the United States 

Travis Minor, Gregory Astill, Sharon Raszap Skorbiansky, 

Suzanne Thornsbury, Jean Buzby, Claudia Hitaj, 

Linda Kantor, Fred Kuchler, Brenna Ellison, Ashok Mishra, 

Tim Richards, Brian Roe, and Norbert Wilson

Economic

Research

Service

Economic

Information

Bulletin

Number 216

January 2020
Economic Research Service 

www.ers.usda.gov

United States Department of Agriculture

Recommended citation format for this publication:

Minor, Travis, Gregory Astill, Sharon Raszap Skorbiansky, Suzanne Thornsbury, Jean 

Buzby, Claudia Hitaj, Linda Kantor, Fred Kuchler, Brenna Ellison, Ashok Mishra, Tim 

Richards, Brian Roe, and Norbert Wilson, Economic Drivers of Food Loss at the Farm 

and Pre-Retail Sectors: A Look at the Produce Supply Chain in the United States, 

EIB-216, January 2020.

Cover images: Getty Images 

Use of commercial and trade names does not imply approval or constitute endorsement by USDA.

To ensure the quality of its research reports and satisfy governmentwide standards, ERS requires that all research 

reports with substantively new material be reviewed by qualified technical research peers. This technical peer 

review process, coordinated by ERS' Peer Review Coordinating Council, allows experts who possess the technical 

background, perspective, and expertise to provide an objective and meaningful assessment of the output’s substantive 

content and clarity of communication during the publication’s review.

In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and 

policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA 

programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity 

(including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived 

from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or 

activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines 

vary by program or incident.

Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g., Braille, large 

print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact the responsible Agency or USDA's TARGET Center at 

(202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY) or contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Additionally, 

program information may be made available in languages other than English.

To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD-3027, 

found online at How to File a Program Discrimination Complaint and at any USDA office or write a letter addressed to 

USDA and provide in the letter all of the information requested in the form. To request a copy of the complaint form, call 

(866) 632-9992. Submit your completed form or letter to USDA by: (1) mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of 

the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, D.C. 20250-9410; (2) fax: (202) 

690-7442; or (3) email: program.intake@usda.gov.

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.
United States Department of Agriculture

Economic

Research

Service

Economic

Information

Bulletin

Number 216

January 2020

Abstract

This report explores economic drivers of fresh-produce (i.e., fruits and vegetables) loss on 

the farm and in pre-retail sectors. Price volatility, labor costs and availability, supply chain 

constraints, retail and consumer quality standards, contract incentives, and existing policy 

are identified as factors influencing food loss on farms and in distribution channels. To be 

successful, efforts to mitigate food loss by recovering or recycling food must have viable 

markets and demonstrate their economic value to growers.

Keywords: food loss, food waste, fruit, vegetable, farm income, produce

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Anne Riddle, formerly of U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), 

Economic Research Service (ERS), for developing and maintaining cost-of-production data 

used in this report. The authors would like to thank the following individuals for technical 

peer reviews: Karina Gallardo, associate professor and extension specialist at Washington 

State University; Ellen Meyer, economist with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; 

Bradley Rickard, the Ruth and William Morgan associate professor in applied economics and 

management at Cornell University; Donald Hinman, agricultural economist with USDA’s 

Agricultural Marketing Service; and two anonymous reviewers. Thanks also to USDA, ERS 

staff members John Weber and Courtney Knauth for editing the report and Andres Guerrero 

for layout and design.

Travis Minor, Gregory Astill, Sharon Raszap Skorbiansky, 

SuzanneThornsbury, Jean Buzby, Claudia Hitaj, Linda Kantor, 

Fred Kuchler, Brenna Ellison, Ashok Mishra, Tim Richards, Brian Roe, 

and Norbert Wilson

Economic Drivers of Food Loss at the Farm and 

Pre-Retail Sectors: A Look at the Produce 

Supply Chain in the United States
ii

Economic Drivers of Food Loss at the Farm and Pre-Retail Sectors: A Look at the Produce Supply Chain in the United States, EIB-216

USDA, Economic Research Service

Contents

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1

Food Loss Defined .............................................................2

Why Fruits and Vegetables? ......................................................5

Drivers of Food Loss and Barriers to Recovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6

Price Volatility ................................................................6

Labor Costs and Availability ....................................................10

Supply Chain ................................................................13

Standards and Consumer Expectations ............................................ 14

Contracts ................................................................... 16

Existing Policy and Unintended Consequences ...................................... 17

Potential Solutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19

Gleaning and Food Donation ....................................................19

Food Recovery, Recycling, and Alternative Markets ..................................20

Government and Private Sector Investments To Reduce Food Loss ......................23

Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27
ERS is a primary source 

of economic research and 

analysis from the U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, 

providing timely information on economic and policy 

issues related to agriculture, 

food, the environment, and 

rural America.

United States Department of Agriculture

A report summary from the Economic Research Service January 2020

Economic Drivers of Food Loss at the Farm and 

Pre-Retail Sectors: A Look at the Produce 

Supply Chain in the United States

Travis Minor, Gregory Astill, Sharon Raszap Skorbiansky,

Suzanne Thornsbury, Jean Buzby, Claudia Hitaj, Linda Kantor, 

Fred Kuchler, Brenna Ellison, Ashok Mishra, Tim Richards, Brian Roe, 

and Norbert Wilson

www.ers.usda.gov

 

Economic Drivers of Food Loss at the 

Farm and Pre-Retail Sectors: 

A Look at the Produce Supply Chain 

in the United States 

 

Summary

What Is the Issue?

The U.S. Department of Agriculture estimates the value of uneaten food at the retail and 

consumer levels at around $161.6 billion annually. While a considerable number of studies have 

examined this type of food loss, few have analyzed the economic factors that result in loss 

of food on farms and in distribution channels. This study provides an overview of the drivers 

of food loss on the farm and other pre-retail sectors with a focus on economic incentives that 

underlie the way fresh foods are grown, processed, and marketed in the United States. Food 

loss as it relates to fresh fruits and vegetables is of particular interest because these foods are 

highly perishable and important to diet quality.

What Did the Study Find?

The balancing of expected costs, revenues, and risks from the sale of produce by growers and 

distributors plays a substantial role in what is often described as “loss” at the pre-retail level in 

the produce supply chain. Examples of factors influencing food loss include:

• Price volatility—Prices of fresh produce are volatile. When prices fall below the cost 

it would take to get additional produce to market, growers may not advance produce 

through the supply chain because doing so becomes unprofitable. When prices rise, 

growers harvest more intensively (either by hiring more labor or by lowering product 

thresholds), and may have the incentive to send lower-cosmetic-quality product to market, 

which can then be subject to increased loss further down the supply chain.

• Labor costs and availability—Labor, particularly harvest labor, constitutes a relatively 

high share of the cost of growing and marketing fresh produce. Rising wages and labor 

availability often combine to increase the costs to harvest a field, leading growers to 

sometimes abandon the crop before harvest and make numerous other production and 

marketing decisions that directly impact levels of food loss.
• Supply-chain factors—Investments in infrastructure for produce commodities (e.g., vacuum 

cooling refrigerated-storage facilities) are large, with benefits often shared across multiple 

growers. Incurring these costs for crops that would otherwise be discarded and would 

command (at most) a lower price often is not profitable for a single grower.

• Standards and consumer expectations—Produce that does not meet aesthetic or other requirements, at any stage in the supply chain, is likely to be rejected, either by buyers or by final 

consumers. Growers, shippers, and retailers make decisions about what and when to cull 

based on perceived consumer preferences; if any of these supply chain stages anticipate a 

buyer will not accept their produce, the produce will not be harvested or advanced through 

the supply chain.

• Contracts—Agreed-upon product quality (i.e., contracting) may reduce some of the variability in returns to growers that would otherwise be inherent in produce markets. However, 

contracts can also contribute to food loss by acting as barriers to entry for growers who are 

not already included but might seek access for excess product.

• Policy constraints—Policy (at the State, local, or Federal levels) can play a role in supporting 

food-loss reduction, recovery, and recycling (e.g., tax incentives for donating food); however, 

some existing policies may unintentionally serve as barriers (e.g., restrictions on gleaning 

(collection of excess food for the purpose of donation), supply control through private-public 

marketing orders) or fail to address the underlying causes of loss. Quality standards such as 

private and public marketing orders may also impact food 

loss rates.

While estimates exist of the value of uneaten food at the retail and consumer levels, numerous 

factors (e.g., data availability, coordination across stakeholders) make it difficult to provide consistent, reliable, national estimates of food loss on the farm and at the pre-retail level. Accurately 

collecting data on national food loss at the farm and pre-retail sectors would constitute a significant 

investment that is beyond the scope of this study. Opportunities to reduce food losses and improve 

farm income have begun to emerge. This study’s findings suggest that successful efforts to mitigate 

food loss need to be accessible and profitable to growers to reduce losses in the pre-retail 

supply chain.

How Was the Study Conducted?

This study provides an economic framework for analyzing drivers of onfarm and pre-retail food 

loss. It collects and synthesizes information about fruit and vegetable food loss from the farm 

through the pre-retail supply chain gathered from relevant academic research, unstructured 

(nonsurvey) input from industry representatives, and growers themselves as well as case studies 

of specific commodities. Informal conversations with growers and other industry representatives 

are used to help frame the issue and provide insights about the definition, scope, and challenges 

surrounding issues of food loss in fresh produce. The study presents case studies of several key 

commodities (fresh field tomatoes, processing tomatoes, potatoes, strawberries, romaine lettuce, 

and fresh peaches) and summarizes the findings of a book on the topic titled “The Economics of 

Food Loss in the Produce Industry.”

www.ers.usda.gov
1

Economic Drivers of Food Loss at the Farm and Pre-Retail Sectors: A Look at the Produce Supply Chain in the United States, EIB-216

USDA, Economic Research Service

Economic Drivers of Food Loss at the Farm and 

Pre-Retail Sectors: A Look at the Produce 

Supply Chain in the United States

Introduction

Loss of agricultural production destined for food consumption (food loss) in the United States 

occurs at all levels of the supply chain from farmers to consumers. The U.S. Department of 

Agriculture’s (USDA) Economic Research Service (ERS) placed a value of uneaten food at the retail 

and consumer levels at around $161.6 billion in 2010 dollars annually in the United States alone 

(Buzby et al., 2014a). This represents losses of 31 percent of food produced in the United States: 

133 billion pounds out of 430 billion pounds. The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United 

Nations (FAO) estimates that 1.3 billion metric tons (2,866 billion pounds) of food worldwide are 

produced and not consumed each year, representing approximately one-third of total food production by volume (FAO, 2011). At first glance, reducing or recovering lost food represents a potentially 

substantial opportunity to improve the efficiency of food production systems due to the implied 

waste of inputs in production, shipping, and storage.

While a considerable amount of the academic literature has been devoted to understanding how food 

loss occurs at the consumer and retail levels, relatively little is known about how much, or why, food 

loss occurs earlier in the supply chain. Most studies of food loss in the United States consider loss 

occurring at the retail level and consumer level (Buzby et al., 2016; Buzby et al., 2015; Buzby et al., 

2009, Muth et al., 2011; Hoover, 2017), or end-use levels (e.g., food that reaches the consumer but is 

not consumed) of the supply chain (EPA, 2018). However, significant losses occur on farms and in 

distribution channels before food reaches retail outlets. Fruit and vegetables are especially prone to 

losses at these stages due to their perishability, importance of product appearance, and fluctuations 

in prices. Most studies of fruit and vegetable loss have focused on agronomic and technical issues, 

but much produce is “lost” because farmers and distributors view the produce as unprofitable or 

excessively risky to move forward. Measures designed to mitigate food loss must take into account 

these economic factors if they are to succeed.

This study investigates the economic drivers of fruit and vegetable loss on farms and in distribution 

channels of the supply chain using information gathered from peer-reviewed studies and conversations with experts, policymakers, industry representatives, and growers themselves. The initial 

investigation identifies commonalities among six produce commodities that are used to develop case 

studies. This study addresses some of the existing knowledge (and data) gaps by summarizing what 

is known about the economic drivers of food loss as it applies to onfarm fruit and vegetable production and losses in the pre-retail supply chain. By first examining economic drivers of food loss (price 

volatility, labor constraints, supply chain rigidities, standards and consumer preferences), the study 

then explores some potential opportunities for reduction of food loss and opportunities to improve 

grower income.
2

Economic Drivers of Food Loss at the Farm and Pre-Retail Sectors: A Look at the Produce Supply Chain in the United States, EIB-216

USDA, Economic Research Service

Food Loss Defined

Definitions of food loss vary widely by market sector and methodology (e.g., FAO, 2011; ReFED, 

2016; Gunders, 2016; WWF, 2017; EPA, 2018). This study adapts one of the most inclusive definitions of food loss. ERS economists define food loss as “...the edible amount of food available for 

human consumption but is not consumed” (Buzby et al., 2014a). That definition, which originally 

focused on only retail and consumer losses, is applied to the onfarm and pre-retail losses explored 

in this report. That is, any edible part of food produced that may be intended for human consumption, but which is not consumed, may be considered food loss at any point in the supply chain. This 

definition includes food grown to maturity, but not harvested, and left in the field for any reason. 

Additionally, food harvested, but either eliminated or diverted from the supply chain, perhaps 

because of size, color, contamination, or shape concerns, is also food loss.

Defining “food waste” is another challenge. Because this study defines food loss broadly, food waste 

is herein considered a subset of loss, similar to the approach in Buzby et al. (2014a) and FAO (2019). 

Other studies define waste as an entirely different outcome dependent on where along the supply 

chain it occurs (EPA, 2018; WWF, 2018) or as separate from loss due to the underlying motivations behind the lost product (Lipinski et al., 2013). This study focuses on the underlying issues and 

drivers of food loss, rather than distinguishing loss from waste. Therefore, it uses the singular term 

“food loss,” defined broadly to encompass both loss and waste.1 Equivalently, using the terminology 

“food loss and waste” would be functionally the same.

1 For a more detailed discussion of some of the definitions of food loss and waste, see box “Complicating Factors for 

Understanding Food Loss.”
3

Economic Drivers of Food Loss at the Farm and Pre-Retail Sectors: A Look at the Produce Supply Chain in the United States, EIB-216

USDA, Economic Research Service

Complicating Factors for Understanding Food Loss 

Current understanding of food loss is hampered by a variety of factors (Hanson et al., 2016; 

Ellison et al., 2019; Minor et al., 2019). First, no singular definition of food loss exists, and 

because there is no agreed-upon terminology, there is also no universally agreed-upon way to 

measure losses.

Lack of Consensus

Table B.1 lays out the similarities and differences among some of the major food loss definitions, which largely come from whether inedible portions of food are included, whether waste 

is a subset of loss, and where waste or loss occurs along the supply chain, from production on 

the farm to the retail shelf.

Table B.1

Definitions of food loss and waste

Agency Food loss Food waste

Does loss 

include 

inedible 

food?

Is waste 

subset of 

loss?

Where does 

waste begin 

in the supply 

chain?

USDA, ERS 

(Buzby et al, 

2014a)

The amount of 

edible food, postharvest, that is 

available for human 

consumption but is 

not consumed for 

any reason. 

NA1 No Yes NA

U.S. EPA 

(2018)

Unused product 

from the agricultural sector, such 

as unharvested 

crops.

Food such as plate 

waste, spoiled food, 

or peels and rinds 

considered inedible.

Yes No After the farm 

level

FAO (2019)

Refers to any 

food that is lost in 

the supply chain 

between the 

producer and the 

market.

Refers to the 

discarding or alternative use of food 

that is safe and 

nutritious for human 

consumption.

No Yes After the 

producer

WWF 

(2017/18)

Average unharvested weight as 

a percent of total 

yield.

Any food that is not 

used for its intended 

purpose.

? No After the farm 

level

EU Fusions 

(2016)

N/A Food and inedible parts of food 

removed from the 

food supply chain.

Yes Yes NA

WRI (2016)

Food and/or associated inedible 

parts removed from 

the food supply 

chain.

NA Yes Yes NA

—continue
4

Economic Drivers of Food Loss at the Farm and Pre-Retail Sectors: A Look at the Produce Supply Chain in the United States, EIB-216

USDA, Economic Research Service

Table B.1

Definitions of food loss and waste—continued

Agency Food loss Food waste

Does loss 

include 

inedible 

food?

Is waste 

subset of 

loss?

Where does 

waste begin 

in the supply 

chain?

NRDC 

(2012)

NA All edible and inedible parts discarded 

or wasted.

Yes NA NA

ReFED 

(2016)

... unintended 

loss of food during 

harvesting, postharvest handling, 

processing, and 

distribution.

Food grown and 

produced for human 

consumption but not 

eaten.

Yes Yes NA

Note: NA = not applicable. ReFED additionally defines “Onfarm loss” as “Food loss that occurs on farms and 

in packinghouses; distinguished from food waste in landfills because the majority of this loss is tilled into soils 

as nutrients.”

1ERS previously defined food waste as “Component of food loss and occurs when an edible item goes unconsumed...”; however, this definition is no longer in use (Buzby et al., 2014).

Sources: See column 1 in table.

Resources spent on competing definitions dividing loss from waste can lead to different assumptions regarding the nature of food loss and can somewhat miss the point, as defining food loss by 

itself does not lead to a deeper understanding of the issue, its importance, or potential mitigators. “Waste” is further viewed as a pejorative term and linked with finding fault or assigning 

blame for an outcome (Creamer and Johnson, 2018). The table shows that some agencies have 

begun to use this term exclusively. If this causes either producers or consumers to become more 

defensive about the issue of food loss, it may be more harmful in finding solutions than it is 

successful at highlighting the problem.

Measurement difficulties and lack of data

Measurement has the potential to clarify and focus efforts. Realizing the importance of comparability across studies, the Food Loss & Waste Protocol (FLWP) released a “Food Loss and 

Waste (FLW) Accounting and Reporting Standard” to help researchers globally create measurements that are consistent, transparent, and comparable across various dimensions (Hanson et 

al., 2016). The report simply defines FLW as a combination of what is lost (edible versus inedible) and its (unintended) destination. Destination is important because it reveals that diversion 

of food, even if it is not able to be quantified, can be ranked from highest to least priority, the 

origins of which can be traced back to EPA and USDA’s Food Recovery Hierarchy (EPA, 2017).

Large-scale, nationally representative surveys of food loss are relatively rare and extremely 

expensive. In lieu of this, many researchers rely on small-scale, indepth studies of food loss on 

a particular commodity or region (WWF, 2018). This type of analysis sheds light on the individual instances studied and may help to inform the larger conversation around food loss generally. However, without some common denominator, it is nearly impossible to tell if the estimates 

from one study are comparable to those of another, are representative of a larger geographic 

area, or are representative of a longer timeframe.
5

Economic Drivers of Food Loss at the Farm and Pre-Retail Sectors: A Look at the Produce Supply Chain in the United States, EIB-216

USDA, Economic Research Service

Why Fruits and Vegetables?

This study analyzes loss in fruit and vegetable markets for two reasons. First, due to their extreme 

perishability and high levels of consumption, fruits and vegetables are a leading contributor to 

food loss nationwide (FAO, 2011; Lipinski et al., 2013). ERS estimates that fruits and vegetables 

(fresh and processed) account for approximately one-third of total U.S. food losses at the retail and 

consumer levels by weight (Buzby et al., 2014a).2 Because fruits and vegetables provide some of the 

more difficult challenges to overcome in their supply chain (i.e., high perishability, short shelf life, 

susceptibility to bruising), insights from this market could potentially be adapted to less perishable 

food products.3

Second, although losses at the consumer and retail level remain important, some studies suggest that 

losses from the farm to the pre-retail supply chain represent about half of total fruit and vegetable 

losses, even in industrialized countries (FAO, 2011). Estimates for North America suggest that 

nearly 40 percent of losses in fruits and vegetables throughout the supply chain occur prior to the 

retail or consumer stage, with the largest portion in this early supply chain occurring at the field 

level (fig. 1) (see FAO, 2011; Hodges et al., 2011; Gunders, 2012; Porat et al., 2018; WWF, 2018).

Figure 1

Estimated food loss for fruits and vegetables in North America throughout the supply chain

30%

6%

3%

18%

42%

Postharvest

Agricultural Production

and Harvest

Processing and Packaging

Retail Distribution

Consumption

Note: Numbers do not add to 100 due to rounding. Product loss is estimated by weight.

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service using data from United Nations Foreign Agriculture Organization, 2011.

An examination of drivers of loss in the upstream U.S. supply chain yields findings that may be 

applicable to similarly industrialized countries but could be especially helpful in furthering the 

understanding of food loss in developing countries, where it is estimated that more of the losses 

occur earlier in the supply chain (FAO, 2011).4

2 By value, this group accounts for roughly the same percentage of loss; however, by calories, fruits and vegetables account for less than 10 percent of total estimated losses, with fats and oils, sugars and sweeteners, and grains making up nearly 

three-quarters of total losses (Buzby et al., 2014a). 

3 Lessons may run the other way as well, where less perishable food supply chains provide insights on how to reduce food 

loss in the perishable food chains. Where progress from other supply chains has been gained, this study incorporates those 

ideas into the understanding of the commodities and issues discussed. 

4 There are also other issues driving food loss in developing countries that the U.S food supply has already addressed, 

such as lack of infrastructure and unreliable storage (Kitinoja et al., 2011; Kumar and Kalita, 2017). 
6

Economic Drivers of Food Loss at the Farm and Pre-Retail Sectors: A Look at the Produce Supply Chain in the United States, EIB-216

USDA, Economic Research Service

Drivers of Food Loss and Barriers to Recovery

Compared with efforts to measure food loss in the United States (e.g., FAO, 2011; Buzby et al., 

2014a; Buzby et al., 2015; Stenmarck et al., 2016; WWF, 2017, FAO 2018), relatively less attention has been given to identifying the causes of food loss, particularly at earlier stages of the supply 

chain (Canali et al., 2014; Gunders, 2017; WWF, 2018). If growers and processors maximize profit, 

one may assume that food loss occurs because eliminating loss is not economically sound under 

current market conditions.

Often, consumers conceive of the fresh-produce supply chain as seamlessly moving from “farm to 

fork.” The reality is much more complex. Supply chains are complicated, with products moving 

rapidly across the globe. Produce can be sold and resold, packed and repacked, before reaching the 

final consumer. In addition, supply chains evolve as technology changes. Moving highly perishable 

fresh produce from the farm to the consumer often involves the use of advanced technologies for 

vacuum cooling, packaging, refrigerated trucking and storage, and other infrastructure to maintain 

product quality and marketability (Minor et al., 2019b).5

Agricultural production of fruits and vegetables is inherently risky, as produce in the field and in 

orchards is exposed to multiple pressures from weather and pests/diseases. Yield and quality change 

by year and region, depending in part on factors outside of a grower’s control. The same planted 

area may exceed expected yield in one year under ideal conditions and produce a shortfall the next 

year under less than ideal conditions. This inherent variability may explain occasional food losses, 

as growers may overplant as part of a risk management strategy to combat uncertainty in the field 

(see box “Case Study Analysis” for a brief overview of the differences observed in the markets 

studies for this report; the commonalities between markets generated the drivers of food loss 

explored later in this study).

Price Volatility

A primary market factor driving food loss is the prevailing market price relative to costs. Produce 

markets are extremely volatile. Because fresh produce is inelastic in demand (changes in prices 

often do not drastically affect the consumer’s purchase choice), changes in the supply cause prices 

to fluctuate rapidly (Andreyeva et al., 2010; Weatherspoon et al., 2013). In most cases, U.S. produce 

markets are highly integrated with global partners (or competitors). Prices fluctuate daily and can 

often cause the value of edible product to drop below the marginal cost of production, which in turn 

means that production is simply not economically viable. Depending on where and when the price 

fluctuations occur, produce could be left in the field, discarded at a packing shed, or dumped from 

the back of a truck (De Gorter, 2014).

Prices vary not only from year to year but within a given growing season. Some price fluctuations 

are relatively predictable. For example, prices often increase later in the season as total production 

begins to decline, though exceptions occur. Others price fluctuations are more idiosyncratic, and 

thus harder to incorporate into expectations (see box “Weather, Disease, and Pests as Sources of 

Food Loss” for more discussion on the effects of weather, disease, and pests on price variability).

5 Some factors will matter more for certain commodities. For example, commodities such as apples or potatoes, which 

can be stored over a longer time period, will have less rigidity in their supply chain constraints. Therefore, while this study 

attempts to cover fruits and vegetables as a whole, some economic drivers will impact certain markets more than others. Similarly, some solutions for reducing food loss may work better in certain markets than in others. 
7

Economic Drivers of Food Loss at the Farm and Pre-Retail Sectors: A Look at the Produce Supply Chain in the United States, EIB-216

USDA, Economic Research Service

Case Study Analysis 

To gain a first-hand understanding of factors driving food loss at the farm level, this study 

examined the supply chain in a variety of produce industries. These case studies provide anecdotal evidence on food loss. Commonalities amongst industries led to a discussion of drivers 

and potential solutions, but collected here are some of the more specific findings in each 

commodity market.

Field tomatoes—Mature green tomatoes are hand-harvested while ripe but still green and later 

undergo treatment to produce the familiar red color. The supply chain is complicated, and one 

firm can perform many roles (grower, packer, storage and gassing facility operators, re-packer, 

fresh-cut processor, or transporter), which facilitates coordination and reduces losses. Two key 

factors are reported as drivers of loss—the market and the natural environment. These factors 

are interrelated: environmental events can affect price, and market conditions impact the degree 

of damage from environmental factors that buyers will accept.

Processing tomatoes—Relative to the fresh produce industry, the processing industry is highly 

efficient. Processing tomatoes are machine-harvested ripe and delivered for immediate use at 

a processing plant; additionally, processing tomatoes do not face the strict aesthetic standards 

that contribute to losses in fresh markets. Because losses are relatively low and less frequent, it 

is difficult to find secondary markets for any leftover product, but this may not be necessary as 

the product is more storable than fresh commodities.

Potatoes—Potatoes are mechanically harvested, and food loss at this stage is minimal, with 

unwanted potatoes relegated to animal feed. Potatoes are rarely re-packed and tend to move 

directly from the packing shed to retail or foodservice distribution centers. Therefore, fresh 

potatoes tend to experience much less loss due to structural issues in the supply chain than other 

fresh commodities. Technological developments both from varietal development and production 

techniques have also resulted in higher yields.

Strawberries—This delicate fruit, which is available year round, is currently hand-picked and 

is susceptible to plant diseases, insect damage, and competition with weeds for nutrients, water, 

and light, as well as market fluctuations. The supply chain of strawberry production reveals 

multiple points where food loss can occur. After fruiting, growers make repeated decisions 

to harvest fields depending on maturation, quality, and price of fruit and labor availability. In 

addition, growers may decide to leave product in the field or mow over the field in response to 

changing market conditions.

Romaine lettuce—Because the heads of romaine are more open than lettuce varieties that 

produce a closed head, there is more outer leaf trim associated with harvesting of romaine 

lettuce, contributing to higher estimated levels of food loss. As growers produce more hearts 

and other value-added preparations of romaine lettuce to meet evolving consumer demands, 

more outer leaves are trimmed and left in the field. Currently, that trim is plowed under at 

the end of the growing season to enrich the soil for future plantings, as an effective means of 

collecting and/or redistributing product trim has not been identified.

Peaches—Thinning and pruning minimize the need to reject peaches at a later stage by 

increasing the size and quality of peaches produced. Pruning also affects harvest labor, since 

lower tree heights enable the peaches to be harvested from the ground or with very short ladders.
8

Economic Drivers of Food Loss at the Farm and Pre-Retail Sectors: A Look at the Produce Supply Chain in the United States, EIB-216

USDA, Economic Research Service

Weather, Disease, and Pests as Sources of Food Loss

Domestic pest and weather events affect produce prices, quality of the produce, and risk management needs throughout the supply chain, with unfavorable production situations limiting supply 

and increasing prices. The number one issue from the natural environment that farmers in the 

case studies described as impacting food loss was weather, specifically unpredictable weather. 

The main weather-based drivers in food loss described in the case studies include temperature 

(both too hot and too cold), precipitation and moisture (too much and too little), and excessive 

sun damage.

High temperatures may affect harvesting decisions, particularly given that California, Arizona, 

and Florida temperatures might exceed 100 degrees during harvest. Unseasonable temperatures 

can also influence how and when a plant matures. Growers also reported how temperature could 

cause too many commodities to ripen at the same time, making it difficult to harvest them (due 

to labor constraints) and generating a surplus for the market.

Food loss is also driven by too much or too little moisture, including periods of drought or 

excessive rain and damage from too much dew. Beyond weather, growers also reported pests 

and disease as environmental factors that drive loss. And while a significant investment has been 

made on multiple fronts to reduce pest and disease damage, these sources of loss still represent 

one of the most salient drivers of loss to a grower. As with market fluctuations, growers invest a 

great deal of effort in trying to mitigate food loss due to environmental impact, including techniques to carefully control soil nutrients and crop irrigation in arid settings. Even for veteran 

growers, however, managing environmental factors to reduce loss can feel like more of an art 

than a science (Baker et al., 2019).

In a recent example, in the early months of 2017, heavy rains in California delayed the harvest 

of numerous crops. Because of the heavy rainfall, lettuce fields and other fields in the vicinity 

flooded. This delayed the planting, harvest, and shipment of the crop in California, the leading 

U.S. producer of many fresh commodities. This delay created a shortage in the retail space for 

lettuce, which consumers are accustomed to purchasing year-round, and created a spike in both 

the wholesale and retail price of most lettuces (Parr et al., 2018). Growers across the country 

scrambled to harvest as much product as they possibly could. Labor that might not have been 

destined for lettuce harvesting was diverted to lettuce harvesting as growers attempted to fill 

the shortage and take advantage of the historically high prices. In spring 2017, it is unlikely that 

any marketable lettuces were left untouched around the country for those few months when 

California harvests were delayed (Astill and Minor, 2019).

Finally, moving production to controlled environments, such as greenhouses or vertical farming 

concepts, has the potential to reduce food waste by minimizing environmental exposure that 

can create cosmetic imperfections. These production systems also allow production schedules 

to synchronize to the timing of typical consumer demand patterns rather than to favorable 

weather patterns, which may also reduce waste through closer alignment of the timing of the 

demand and supply of perishable produce.
9

Economic Drivers of Food Loss at the Farm and Pre-Retail Sectors: A Look at the Produce Supply Chain in the United States, EIB-216

USDA, Economic Research Service

The market price directly influences the cost-benefit analysis of harvest (as well as the other costs

of production) or, for some commodities, another harvest.6 The expected market price must cover 

the costs of picking, hauling, and packing before a worker enters the field. With a low market price, 

growers might determine that they actually maximize their returns by not harvesting a particular 

field (Baker et al., 2019). If the price drops, growers have less of an incentive to hire harvest crews; 

pay for packing, shipping, and cooling of product; etc., and they may leave more product behind 

than in a normal market, raising observable food loss (Canali et al., 2014; Dunning et al., 2019; 

Baker et al., 2019; Minor et al., 2019b). Food loss via volatile prices can simply be driven by additional supply, cases in which there is a smaller market for even perfect produce may result in losses 

in the field as only the top quality produce is harvested. Other situations in which it may no longer 

be economical for any further harvest to occur, regardless of the product quality still left in the field, 

include declines in demand, news of a food safety event, or unusually high yields.

Figure 2 illustrates the price variability inherent in fruit and vegetable markets over time. Because 

these values are indexed for all fruit and vegetable markets, they are less volatile on average than a 

single market may be. This means that growers of a particular commodity may be faced with even 

more volatility than is pictured here in the aggregate.7

Figure 2 

Price volatility in fruit and vegetable markets (compared to feed grain markets)

50

70

90

110

130

150

Price Index, 2011=100

Vegetables

Jan-16

Mar-16

May-16

Jul-16

Sep-16

Nov-16

Jan-17

Mar-17

May-17

Jul-17

Sep-17

Nov-17

Jan-18

Mar-18

Jul-18

May-18

Sep-18

Nov-18

Fruit and tree nuts Feed Grains

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service using data from USDA, National Agricultural Statistics Service.

Growers make economic decisions to generate profits, which often means maintaining a strong reputation for quality product. This profit discipline means that destroying edible production is sometimes rational (Richards and Mishra, 2019). For example, in the case of a rapidly maturing crop, like 

strawberries, if the market price falls at the height of the season, some growers may choose to plow 

6 Some commodities, like tomatoes, may be picked multiple times in a single season, and each harvest decision depends 

on the cost of inputs into another harvest and the prevailing market price. Dunning et al. (2019) explicitly examine the relationship between an additional harvest and farm profitability. They show that for some commodities, under certain conditions 

additional harvest may improve profitability, while for others it may not, highlighting the variability of food loss across commodities and growing conditions. 

7 Price spikes for vegetables in March 2017 were related to flooding in California (Parr et al., 2018 and 2019a). Falling prices 

for fruits in May 2018 were largely due to increased production of noncitrus fruits and tree nuts (Perez and Minor, 2018).
10

Economic Drivers of Food Loss at the Farm and Pre-Retail Sectors: A Look at the Produce Supply Chain in the United States, EIB-216

USDA, Economic Research Service

rather than harvest (Hsu-Flanders et al., 2019). While this could benefit individual producers, some 

edible produce will be lost.

Acceptance levels of quality standards are also flexible for crops that mature quickly, are highly 

perishable, and are subject to rapid price changes. That is, acceptable quality thresholds may be 

relaxed by private industry when fresh produce is in short supply and prices are higher.8 Often 

informally communicated to harvest crews in real time, higher prices due to a short crop may result 

in less product left in the field or culled during packing and sorting. High market prices may also 

stimulate additional harvest passes for crops, further decreasing usable product left unharvested.

Price shocks in fresh produce markets are often difficult or impossible to anticipate, particularly in 

cases where growers sell into national or global markets.9 Despite these challenges, growers attempt to 

predict market conditions when making planting decisions and then try to adjust to market volatility 

in real time. Ultimately, however, because market prices are typically beyond the control of any single 

producer, growing fresh produce remains a highly speculative and risky venture (Baker et al., 2019).

Labor Costs and Availability

Food loss literature also cites the input cost and availability of labor as a significant factor influencing produce losses (Baker et al., 2019; Astill and Minor, 2019; Hsu-Flanders et al., 2019; WWF, 

2018). Labor demand can increase during the season depending on the types of other crops coming 

to maturity in an area. For example, tomatoes or peppers can be picked 6-8 times per season as fruit 

ripens to the optimal stage. However, harvesting fresh produce is costly and relies on the availability 

of manual labor. Growers calculate whether the incremental revenue from another harvest will cover 

the associated costs and may decide to leave some produce in the field when labor costs rise and/or 

anticipated harvest is relatively small.

Indeed, many fresh produce commodities are harvested exclusively by hand. For example, with 

leafy greens, the harvester makes a single cut just above the ground to release the head from the 

soil. The head is then trimmed of excess leaves with one or two more cuts and packed. This whole 

process is done very quickly; a matter of seconds from the first cut to being packed. Workers are 

highly trained to make sure the product meets buyer specifications, so it is both attractive and 

appealing to retail consumers. Workers are not explicitly trained to minimize product loss as a 

primary outcome. That is, the goal of harvesting is not to capture all of the edible product that 

could possibly survive transportation and storage because this is not what buyers and, ultimately, 

consumers are interested in purchasing (Astill and Minor, 2019).10

Rising labor costs shift the cost-benefit analysis of harvesting decisions, indirectly driving increases 

in food loss (Zahniser et al., 2018). For fresh produce, much of the additional cost of recovery 

is related to the harvesting itself, which leaves the growers vulnerable to fluctuating labor costs. 

Production costs vary depending on the type of crop, labor, and harvest activities. Table 1 summarizes average production costs by category for selected commodities with estimated budgets that 

8 These thresholds relate to a variety of factors including shape, size, and look of the product (USDA, AMS, 2019a and 

2019b). For example, a buyer may begin to accept U.S. grade No. 2s, rather than only grade No. 1s, in a time of tight supply. 

These are not food safety thresholds, and thus the shift in grade should not affect the food safety quality of the produce. 

9 A grower selling locally may have a good idea of the other factors affecting price (neighboring production, weather, 

etc.), but these factors become much more difficult to predict and incorporate effectively on a national or global scale. 

10 For more information, see the section on standards and consumer expectations. 
11

Economic Drivers of Food Loss at the Farm and Pre-Retail Sectors: A Look at the Produce Supply Chain in the United States, EIB-216

USDA, Economic Research Service

separately list labor costs.11 Among these crops, the share of labor costs as a function of total (all 

reported) costs is greatest for peaches (20 percent), tomatoes (15 percent), peppers and potatoes (7 

percent), and carrots, lettuce, and spinach (about 4-5 percent). Overall, labor accounts for about 10 

percent of the total production costs for the fresh produce commodities listed. When labor is considered with machinery, packing materials, harvest, and tools, etc., that percentage jumps to 36 percent 

of total costs.12 At the margin, any increase in labor costs could lead a grower to decide to leave 

product in the field, dependent on the price the product will fetch on the market (Hitaj et al., 2019).

Table 1

Average total production costs by category for selected produce crops (2013 dollars)

Crops Labor Harvest ($) Total ($) Average labor 

share ($)

Average labor 

and harvest 

share ($)

Lettuce 427 3,982 9,195 4.5 47.9

Fresh tomatoes 1,560 2,724 9,981 15.3 42.9

Spinach 125 988 2,930 4.0 38.0

Peaches 1,171 841 5,557 20.1 36.2

Peppers 719 2,205 10,539 7.3 27.7

Carrots 97 543 2,359 4.5 27.1

Potatoes 217 374 3,071 6.8 19.2

Average 617 1,665 6,233 9.9 36.6

Source: Enterprise budgets used by USDA, Economic Research Service in the Regional Environment and Agriculture Programming (REAP) model, originally documented by Johansson et al. (2007). Only enterprise budgets with a separate cost 

category for labor were included, and the average labor share of total costs is included. Budgets differ in how they allocate 

costs across categories. The average total is not equal to the sum of the subcategory averages. Costs presented are average 

total costs per activity, measured at the operation level.

Like the steadily rising price of onfarm labor (Zahniser et al., 2018), labor shortages at critical times 

can lead growers to leave product in the field or to delay harvesting (Baker et al., 2019; Dunning 

et al., 2019). Strawberry growers in California reported that labor is the biggest challenge to the 

industry (Guthman, 2017). Growers demand some amount of labor throughout the production 

period, but at harvest, growers have continuous, time sensitive, and often greater, demand for labor. 

If labor is not readily available or the price of labor is too high relative to the return on harvest, 

growers may leave the field unharvested. Labor shortages often lead growers to abandon fields, 

sometimes over multiple years. Sometimes growers decide to sacrifice a portion of the field to ensure 

that the highest quality product makes it to market.

Demand for hired farmworkers has fluctuated over time (fig. 3). The number of workers fell steadily 

from over 1 million in 2000 to just under 850,000 in 2007. Since 2007, the number of hired workers 

has remained relatively stable, with no sharp or sustained declines.13

11 Extension crop production budgets guide farmers in the type and amount of expenses they can expect to incur in establishing a new crop or producing from an established crop. The budgets do not follow a set format, and some include more 

detailed break-outs of cost categories than others. 

12 Because budgets differ in their reporting, we are unable to definitively conclude that all labor is separate from the harvest category in these calculations. Therefore, the combination of the harvest and labor category may be the most illustrative 

of comparisons between commodities, as it is likely to encapsulate many of the costs of getting product out of the field. 

13 Over this same time horizon, total U.S. production of vegetables has fallen from 40.5 billion pounds in 2000 to 35.9 

billion pounds in 2018 (Parr et al., 2019b); similarly, U.S. production of fruits has fallen from 74.4 billion pounds in 2000 to 

58.4 billion pounds in 2018 (Perez, 2018). 
12

Economic Drivers of Food Loss at the Farm and Pre-Retail Sectors: A Look at the Produce Supply Chain in the United States, EIB-216

USDA, Economic Research Service

Figure 3 

U.S. hired farmworkers for all crops

700,000

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

750,000

800,000

850,000

900,000

950,000

1,000,000

1,050,000

1,100,000

Number of hired farmworkers

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service using data from USDA, National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS). Numbers 

presented are from annual July estimates of the number of workers. Because farm work is highly seasonal, NASS presents 

estimates four times throughout the year. All estimates show a similar decline over time; we chose to illustrate the July numbers as they may best capture the beginning of the harvest season for some produce.

To combat the loss in more traditional (migrant) labor sources, many growers have turned to alternative programs and recruitment strategies (Zahniser et al., 2018). For example, growers are increasingly reliant on obtaining guest workers through the H-2A visa program or through farm labor 

contractors (FLCs). Since 2010, the number of H-2A approved workers and applications across all 

agricultural industries (not only fresh produce) has grown by 276 percent (fig. 4).

Figure 4 

H-2A workers and applications in U.S. agriculture

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

9,000

10,000

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Number of H-2A applications

Workers

Number of H-2A workers

Applications

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service using data from U.S. Department of Labor, Office of Foreign Labor Certification.
13

Economic Drivers of Food Loss at the Farm and Pre-Retail Sectors: A Look at the Produce Supply Chain in the United States, EIB-216

USDA, Economic Research Service

Harvesting produce, including minimizing damage and recognizing quality differences, requires 

skill and experience. In addition to the challenges posed by labor scarcity, the class of qualified 

laborers is “aging out” at a faster pace than the influx of new, and younger, laborers. Demographic 

shifts such as lower birth rates in Mexico, a major source of U.S. farm labor, is curtailing the supply 

of laborers (Taylor et al., 2012; Charlton and Taylor, 2013; Fan et al. 2015; Zahniser et al., 2018). 

Further, improved economic conditions and education in Mexico and the rising cost of housing in 

primary growing regions have hampered the supply of laborers.

The labor compensation method (piece-rate versus hourly wage) may also affect harvest losses 

(Hill, 2019; Stevens, 2019). As piece-rate compensation increases with the total amount harvested, 

workers may rush and harvest all sizes and grades and fail to remove stems or stalks that could 

puncture other produce.14 Alternatively, hourly wage compensation provides less incentive for the 

quantity harvested and may induce workers to pick more carefully. This is often beneficial for plant 

health and for harvesting produce that makes both size and grade standards, potentially reducing 

discard rates at the packinghouse while increasing the amount of product left behind in the field 

(Baker et al., 2019).

Supply Chain

While market fluctuation in the sales price and the price of inputs are often first cited as drivers of 

food loss, market infrastructure and supply chain rigidities are also contributing factors. However, 

much of the food loss discussion in the United States ignores the early stages of the fresh food 

supply chain, from the farm through transportation and processing (Kitinoja et al., 2018). 

This is partly because some early research suggested that losses are relatively small near the farm 

stage in developed countries (FAO, 2011) and because losses at these early stages may be less 

visible to the public than post-consumer waste.15

After harvest, the shipping and packing process can play a pivotal role in produce being left behind 

or culled from the marketplace. Because of the extreme perishability and sensitive nature of many 

produce crops, the fresh produce industry has invested heavily in streamlining the supply chain to 

minimize post-harvest loss. Many commodities are packed fresh from the field and immediately 

go into vacuum cooling or other controlled-environment storage within hours (Astill and Minor, 

2019). Some commodities are not field packed but are instead packed in large open-air bins suitable 

for transport in trucks. Retailers examine produce upon delivery and cull damaged items. Growers 

and shippers receive frequent feedback and quality assessment from the receiving dock, much of 

which is passed on by quality supervisors in the form of daily, weekly, and monthly reports. Thus, 

throughout the supply chain, growers and buyers make frequent decisions about practices that might 

lower the chance of loss. This is a process of continuous quality improvement.

Throughout the shipping process, maintaining appropriate temperature, carbon dioxide levels, and 

humidity is important to preserving quality. Loss of quality through mold growth, bruising, or other 

causes of deterioration can occur during shipping. In these conditions, produce at the bottom of 

a container can be damaged by the weight of the produce packed on top of it. Picking under-ripe 

produce helps avoid some of the damage incurred during shipping. In order to harvest the more-ripe 

produce left behind, this shipping process would have to be adjusted, which would likely mean a 

substantial investment in infrastructure (Baker et al., 2019). As the container environment is continuously monitored, the problem of quality loss during transportation can be largely attributed to 

14 That is, a piece rate may initially result in more produce taken out of the field but may lead to greater losses further 

down the supply chain as damaged produce deteriorates more quickly, possibly affecting other produce packed nearby. 

15 Onfarm losses are often plowed under to enhance soil fertility, making them less visible than food rotting in a landfill. 
14

Economic Drivers of Food Loss at the Farm and Pre-Retail Sectors: A Look at the Produce Supply Chain in the United States, EIB-216

USDA, Economic Research Service

poorly selected product. Because the risk of lost product more often falls back to the grower and not 

the shipper, growers are careful to select produce that is well suited for the typically long-haul shipments to a final consumer (Hsu-Flanders et al., 2019).

Nevertheless, some loss persists. The cold chain is critical to maintaining quality from the point of 

harvest to the final consumer.16 Disruptions in the cold chain (e.g., power failure, faulty equipment) 

lead to rapid deterioration of quality and food loss. Many larger growers in major production areas 

have cooling units that cool the product quickly.17 Any delay in entering the cold chain quickly 

reduces marketability; consequently, cooling units must be located near central growing regions, if 

not directly on the farm (Hsu-Flanders et al., 2019).

Due to the high level of investment in infrastructure for a specific commodity market, switching 

produce to a different outlet is not typically a straightforward process. Some products not sold into 

the fresh market, such as blueberries and apples, may be easily moved to alternate (albeit typically less valuable) processing markets. Other products, such as fresh tomatoes, do not have these 

options as standards and varieties vary substantially by intended use (e.g., fresh versus processed 

end products). Infrastructure investments for produce commodities are substantial, and undertaking 

these costs for currently lost food, which would command a lower price in alternative markets, often 

simply does not make economic sense for a single grower.

Standards and Consumer Expectations

Retail specifications, along with grading standards, explicitly state requirements for a product’s 

appearance and other characteristics. Buyers have quality standards for specific reasons, such as 

food safety considerations or consumer preferences, and will reject a deficient load, resulting in 

lost profits and loss of reputation (Calvin et al., 2001). The most visible standards related to fresh 

produce are voluntary standards set by USDA’s Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) in conjunction with the affected industry. According to AMS, “U.S. Grade Standards for vegetables are 

voluntary and provide the fruit, vegetable, and specialty crop industry with a uniform language for 

describing the quality and condition of commodities in the marketplace” (USDA, AMS, 2019a) 

and help provide some stability and solve marketing problems that growers cannot solve individually (USDA, AMS, 2019a and 2019b).18 AMS also supports marketing orders, which “are 

industry-driven programs that help fruit, vegetable, and specialty crop producers and handlers 

achieve marketing success" (USDA, AMS, 2019c), by providing oversight authority on more than 

20 individual specialty crop (SC) markets. In addition to setting “mandatory minimum standards 

on products shipped in order to prevent inferior quality product from depressing the market for the 

whole crop,” marketing orders also “assure customer satisfaction, and drive increasing consumer 

repurchase" (USDA, AMS, 2017). These sets of standards are meant to provide a common language 

for producers and buyers to communicate about quality and promote efficiency in marketing and 

procurement.19

16 “Cold chain” refers to multiple steps in the harvest and transportation of fresh produce where temperature and other 

environmental factors are under control to prolong product shelf life. Typically, once a product enters the cold chain, temperature and other environmental factors are maintained as the product changes hands. 

17 For smaller growers, cooling may take place through affiliated packing sheds rather than onfarm. For many fresh produce items, cooling is necessary, not optional, regardless of farm size. 

18 The standards discussed here are outside of those Federal (Astill et al., 2018 and Astill et al., 2019) and buyer-driven 

(Minor et al., 2019a) food safety requirements, which are discussed more thoroughly in the section “Existing Policy and 

Unintended Consequences.” 

19 Private standards may also exist in these markets, often specific to an individual commodity market (which could be 

a commodity, region, or a buyer-seller relationship). Private agreements go beyond what is provided by the public standards 

and may require a higher quality threshold or certification of other practices (e.g., environmental, human rights) not overseen 

by USDA. 
15

Economic Drivers of Food Loss at the Farm and Pre-Retail Sectors: A Look at the Produce Supply Chain in the United States, EIB-216

USDA, Economic Research Service

Moving produce through the supply chain includes inspectors, requested by financially interested 

parties (often marketing orders or other industry representatives), who maintain grades and standards in the industry. Through random and representative sampling, inspectors evaluate the product 

based on various factors including maturity, appearance, color, shape, size and the presentation of 

the packaging (USDA, AMS, 2019a and 2019b). Inspectors assess the condition of the product, 

looking for defects, such as signs of bruises, leaking fruit, mold, decay, or other signs of deterioration. This process generates a score that inspectors use in assigning a grade and determining if specifications have been met. The inspector never makes decisions regarding disposition of the product, 

but the inspection certificate helps industry members determine value, which can guide disposition 

decisions. Companies make decisions about quality based on these standards and market conditions, 

deciding to advance or cull produce accordingly (Hsu-Flanders et al., 2019).

Grades and standards may help to mitigate costs incurred from unsaleable product by stopping the 

unsaleable product as early in the supply chain as possible. Cosmetic imperfections visible in the 

field may worsen over time, resulting in unsaleable product after transportation through the supply 

chain. Mildly decayed or moldy produce, while technically edible, could contaminate nearby 

product that meets standards, rendering it ultimately unsaleable as well and exacerbating loss. In 

such cases, moving unsaleable food forward incurs additional labor, transportation, and storage 

costs, which reduces profit relative to simply abandoning the product in the field, or repurposing it 

for some other more efficient use (e.g., compost).

While the stated goals of these standards often do not directly address food loss, many of the goals, 

such as opening products to the largest number of potential markets, may have spillover effects in 

curbing some loss. More recently, market opportunities provided by Fruit Vegetables and Specialty 

Crop (FVSC) marketing orders have expanded to include actions on food loss. The Florida Citrus 

and Idaho-Eastern Oregon Marketing Orders provide specific processing outlets for product that 

does not meet fresh grade standards. (USDA, AMS, 2019c).

Conversely, grades and standards and consumer preferences prevent some edible product from 

moving forward in the supply chain because it is deemed unmarketable. For instance, if consumers 

are unwilling to purchase “ugly fruit” (e.g., an apple with russeting on the skin), retailers are 

unlikely to accept fruit below a cosmetic threshold that includes the undesirable attribute. The actual 

quality of fresh produce grown on the farm is uncertain and will fluctuate with many factors outside 

a grower’s control (e.g., weather, disease, and pests). Fresh produce that does not meet aesthetic or 

other requirements is likely to result in food loss regardless of whether the produce is grown under 

contract for a restaurant or for sale in a local farmers’ market.

Rigid consumer preferences, or at least rigid retailer interpretations of consumer preferences, translated to quality thresholds are cited as a driver of in-field loss for produce (Baker et al., 2019). If 

growers anticipate customers will not buy produce below a certain standard, the produce will not be 

harvested. Retailers and consumers are accustomed to uniform, relatively perfect fruits and vegetables. This typically results in cosmetically deformed or misshapen produce and any that are too 

large or too small being left in the field, despite the fact that they may be nutritionally equivalent to 

the more uniform fruit and vegetables. This leaves edible food behind that would be satisfactory for 

consumers who may not require perfect uniformity of produce (Baker et al., 2019).
16

Economic Drivers of Food Loss at the Farm and Pre-Retail Sectors: A Look at the Produce Supply Chain in the United States, EIB-216

USDA, Economic Research Service

Contracts

To limit uncertainty associated with produce quality standards and pricing, some markets have 

incorporated formal contracting into their buying procedure. Growers and buyers of agricultural 

goods (such as processors or handlers) use agricultural contracts to reduce risk and secure marketing 

channels for sales of goods outside of traditional spot markets. Produce contracts will most often 

specify the volume, sales price, and physical quality of the product to be delivered. In this way, 

contracts help solve the issue of coordination: growers would like to sell all of their output, while 

buyers would like to purchase the quantity they need. As agricultural contracts continue to increase 

over time, they may increasingly influence food loss in different market contexts.20

Loss rates may differ when buyers and sellers trade produce via contracts. Growers with fixed price 

contracts or an agreed-upon volume will harvest regardless of the market price since they have a 

guaranteed contract price and do not have the ability to leave produce in the field if they believe the 

agreed price was not favorable, ex post. Contracts reduce market-price volatility, compared to spot 

markets. Marketing contracts can help reduce food loss by coordinating the terms of trade for buyers 

and sellers. More frequent monitoring reduces the likelihood of food loss due to quality uncertainty. 

Third-party graders reduce risk within the contract, which reduces the likelihood of food loss due 

to conflicts over the delivered quality of produce (Skorbiansky and Ellison, 2019). A well written 

contract includes explicit expectations and standards. Often, contracts may reduce some of thevarability inherent in produce markets, but they would need to be written with food loss in mind to 

reduce unintended consequences.21

Growers and processors may be risk averse, preferring a surplus to a shortage, when they must 

deliver or have the opportunity to sell a pre-determined volume (Kahneman et al., 1991, De Gorter, 

2014). Some contracts severely penalize shortages, whereas a surplus may also be bought by the 

customer (possibly at a lower price) or sold into secondary channels. Keeping additional product on 

hand can be a grower’s optimal strategy for risk management.

There are a few other situations where contract use could exacerbate food loss. Depending on the 

value and fragility of relationships, growers may be more likely to overplant, ensuring product 

they deliver is at or above expectations. Premium schedules, which incentivize off-season production, could shift the distribution of output quality downward, increasing the likelihood of rejected 

produce. Finally, poorly written contracts may incentivize food loss if there is an opportunity for 

moral hazard or adverse selection22 to influence a grower’s profits. In addition, poor enforcement 

of contracted standards could also create losses. Carefully written contracts avoid such issues by 

providing the necessary incentives or payment schedule to ensure growers invest in producing highquality output and ensuring buyers adhere to the terms of sale.

20 Almost 40 percent of the value of U.S. agricultural production in 2008 was grown under contract, compared to 28 

percent in 1991 (McDonald and Korb, 2011). 

21 Most current market contracts do not seem to address or acknowledge food loss in any way (McDonald and 

Korb, 2011). 

22 Moral hazard and adverse selection are two problems that can occur when there is information asymmetry. Moral 

hazard happens if a grower lacks incentive to protect crops against risk given protection from the consequences (e.g., crop 

insurance could incentivize growers to take on more risk than necessary (Smith and Goodwin, 1996) and that risk could lead 

to losses). Adverse selection happens if the growers or buyers have private information about themselves that has not been 

shared (e.g., growers with private knowledge of poor soil quality may not share this information for fear of losing a contract). 
17

Economic Drivers of Food Loss at the Farm and Pre-Retail Sectors: A Look at the Produce Supply Chain in the United States, EIB-216

USDA, Economic Research Service

Existing Policy and Unintended Consequences

A single-minded pursuit of any policy goal may lead to unintended consequences, and food loss 

reductions are no exception. For example, if a policy incentivized growers to send all of their edible 

produce to a wholesaler, it could result in defective or imperfect produce being thrown out at later 

points in the supply chain (i.e., at the wholesaler, retailer, or consumer levels). This policy would not 

actually reduce food loss; rather, it simply shifts the point where the losses occur, likely requiring 

more investment in ultimately uneaten produce that may end up in a landfill. Such a policy would 

also prevent growers from plowing under the damaged or cosmetically imperfect produce and fertilizing future crops. The further down the supply chain food is lost, the more resources will have been 

expended.

Foodborne Illness Outbreaks as a Source of Food Loss

Relatively low-frequency but high-impact events, such as a foodborne illness outbreak linked to 

a particular crop, were often cited by growers as a potential source of food loss. These events 

could prove harmful to a market if all consumers quickly stop their purchase of a commodity 

which is deemed safe, but that information is not able to be quickly and easily passed along to 

the buyers. 

For example, in March 2018, illnesses of E. coli O157:H7 began to be identified. The outbreak, 

which ran until the end of June and affected 36 States, consisted of 210 illnesses and 5 deaths that 

were linked to romaine lettuce produced in the Yuma growing region of Arizona. In November 

2018, another E. coli O147:H7 outbreak occurred when 62 individuals were made ill after eating 

romaine ultimately found to be harvested in central California. During the fall outbreak, FDA 

first advised consumers to avoid romaine lettuce. Later, the agency revised its advice to avoid 

romaine from central California. 

When each of the outbreaks in 2018 began to gain national attention, growers outside of the 

implicated area were unable to sell their product through traditional retail channels for a period 

of time. Some consumers were unwilling to purchase any romaine, even with assurances that 

the product was not grown in the contaminated region. In the case of the spring 2018 outbreak 

in Yuma, prices were so low that some California growers found it more cost effective to simply 

plow their romaine crop under than to harvest, cool, and ship the product. Both outbreaks 

led to dramatic swings in price that altered growers’ decision process about harvesting, labor, 

and shipping, all of which led to extreme changes in the amount of food loss in the market.

A study of a similarly sized outbreak in 2006 shows that consumers largely substituted away 

from implicated produce items to substitute goods at a similar rate (Arnade et al., 2009). This 

suggests that while traditional consumers of romaine may have purchased less during the 2018 

outbreaks, they likely substituted a different leafy green, creating an ambiguous effect on overall 

food loss. 
18

Economic Drivers of Food Loss at the Farm and Pre-Retail Sectors: A Look at the Produce Supply Chain in the United States, EIB-216

USDA, Economic Research Service

Existing policies may also incentivize growers to leave product in the field or exclude it from the 

early supply chain. Product can also be left unharvested due to food safety risks associated with 

potential microbial contamination. For example, the Leafy Greens Marketing Agreement (LGMA) 

mandates a harvest buffer of 3 feet from any signs of animal intrusion and a minimum of 5 feet from 

the presence of animal feces (CA LGMA, 2019).23

Growers harvest all salvageable product possible while reducing the risk of unsafe food entering the 

marketplace. While it may be technically possible to reduce the amount of product lost at this stage 

by reducing the harvest buffer zone, it is unlikely to be economically efficient due to potentially 

severe negative impacts for consumers (e.g., serious foodborne illness or death), does not specify 

any set harvest interval or buffer zone but suggests “measures reasonably necessary” (Astill et al., 

2018) growers, and the industry (e.g., sales loss and liability) (see box “Foodborne Illness Outbreaks 

as a Source of Food Loss”).

Tax policy has implications for food loss at the farm level. For example, donations represent a 

potential tax savings for many businesses, and some States as well as the Federal Government incentivize farm donations to nonprofit entities (USC, 2011; NGP, 2015). However, many growers may be 

unaware of these benefits, or because the benefits take the form of income-tax deductions rather than 

a direct payment of funds, growers may choose not to take them. There are concerns among growers 

about loss of reputation and liability exposure from a product once it moves forward in the supply 

chain (Minor et al., 2019b). For example, because growers cannot verify that donated produce will 

be handled in a safe and secure manner, there is concern that donated food could be implicated in 

a foodborne illness traced back to a grower’s operation. The Bill Emerson Good Samaritan Food 

Donation Act limits growers’ liability (USC, 1996), but producers are still reluctant to let product 

with their label be at increased risk of a foodborne illness event. Some growers suggest that even 

having their product labeled at a food bank could potentially damage the brand, suggesting that their 

produce was of lower quality.24

23 Some growers may quarantine off less (if not formally a part of LGMA) or more depending on the type of animal or 

severity of the intrusion. The Food Safety Modernization Act’s Produce Rule does not specify any set harvest interval or buffer zone but suggests “measures reasonably necessary” (Astill et al., 2018). 

24 It could require additional resources to remove labels or packaging that might identify the grower prior to donation, an 

investment which would not be recouped. 
19

Economic Drivers of Food Loss at the Farm and Pre-Retail Sectors: A Look at the Produce Supply Chain in the United States, EIB-216

USDA, Economic Research Service

Potential Solutions

Potential solutions to food loss generally fall into two broad approaches: source reduction and redistribution. The first step on the EPA’s food recovery hierarchy is source reduction of surplus food, 

and some argue that the most efficient means of reducing food loss throughout the supply chain 

is to identify sources of loss and stop those unproductive areas of production (EPA, 2017). Such 

preventative actions may include new value-added products from excess or lower grade produce, 

new efficiencies that reduce harvesting cost and damage to product during harvest, new technologies for preserving the quality of produce while in distribution, retail, or even in consumers’ chiller 

drawers. This type of source reduction has obvious environmental benefits if indeed the losses are 

avoidable because less land, fertilizers, water, and other inputs are put into produce growth that does 

not get consumed by people and could also be beneficial to the grower’s bottom line, if they were 

no longer sinking those same costly inputs (plus labor) into the ultimately unsold product. However, 

difficulties arise around the uncertainty surrounding food production and loss and the risk management strategies employed by producers. As outlined above, the causes of food loss in fresh produce 

markets in general are volatile, changing from season to season and crop to crop—there could even 

be no produce lost in some years.

Research into market mechanisms that underlie food loss is growing as policymakers realize the 

potential opportunity to move toward food security, environmental, and resource-use goals simply 

by making better use of what is already being grown. Further, researchers are also beginning to 

understand that alleviating the problem of food loss requires a solution that benefits all parties 

involved in food recovery (ReFED, 2016; WWF, 2018). In some cases, actions might provide new 

economic opportunities and stimulate rural development, actions, and ideas explored more fully in 

the following sections.

Gleaning and Food Donation

Perhaps the most traditional method for collecting and redistributing unsold or unharvested food is 

gleaning. Gleaning refers to the collection of excess food from farms, other supply chain sectors, 

or retail sources for the purpose of donation. Gleaning reduces the amount of food loss while also 

potentially providing produce for people who may be food insecure (i.e., they lack access to enough 

food to maintain a healthy life). Today, a significant amount of gleaning takes place through a 

system of donation, generally collected by volunteers who are typically not the beneficiaries, to 

mitigate food loss while also feeding people in poverty.

Gleaning organizations tend to be united by a common mission, but approaches and organizational 

structures differ (Gunders, 2017).25 As of 2019, the National Gleaning Project listed 282 organizations and chapters operating in 45 States, the District of Columbia, and nationally (NGP, 2015). 

While the list is not exhaustive, it represents the range of gleaning models in the United States.

Commercial farms often have larger volumes of excess produce, so they are better suited for 

gleaning and donations. Gleaners that partner with commercial growers constitute some of the 

largest donors to food banks in terms of volume (Vitiello et al., 2013). Coordinating the logistics 

of harvest and transportation at a single farm is easier than aggregating donations from many sites. 

In addition to partnering with commercial farms, some high-volume gleaning organizations are 

harnessing the expertise of farm laborers to harvest excess produce. Some employ low-income farmworkers to glean produce that is distributed through their own programs and local partners. 

25 In fact, gleaning was a priority of USDA Secretary Glickman throughout the 1990s, an interest that stemmed from a 

1977 report to Congress (see GAO, 1977). 
20

Economic Drivers of Food Loss at the Farm and Pre-Retail Sectors: A Look at the Produce Supply Chain in the United States, EIB-216

USDA, Economic Research Service

Because these workers are already trained and guaranteed a wage, they form a reliable and efficient 

labor pool. However, smaller and volunteer-supported gleaning organizations remain a large part of 

the food recovery landscape (Feeding America, 2014; NGP, 2017b; Gallagher et al. 2019).

Fresh produce is perishable and often requires cold storage, so gleaners must overcome challenges 

related to packaging, transportation, and storage. Many gleaning operations operate similar to a 

small wholesaler, with logistics management and infrastructure development. Management and 

distribution are coordinated by full-time staff members, in addition to a large volunteer labor base 

(NGP, 2017a).

Successful gleaning organizations build trust and establish rapport by developing expert agricultural 

knowledge, maintaining consistent communication with their suppliers, and performing quality 

work that does not interfere with other farm operations. This helps ensure they avoid posing additional costs to producers. Growers benefit from a set schedule and by having a known and reliable 

outlet for crops that would otherwise go unharvested. There are reasons growers may benefit from 

harvesting a crop, even if it would not be marketed. For example, harvesting unmarketable product 

may help mitigate the risk of disease or encourage continued production.26 In these instances, maintenance gleaning occurs when a continuously fruiting crop is harvestable that growers do not have 

the time or labor to manage. For example, if gleaners harvest green beans early in the season, the 

plants will be available for a subsequent harvest that could provide the producer with additional 

income. Gleaning can further benefit farmers by reducing the time and monetary costs (e.g., transportation costs and tipping fees) associated with disposing of unmarketable produce that cannot be 

plowed under, such as orchard crops. Finally, gleaning can yield indirect benefits for a grower by 

increasing visibility within the community (NGP, 2017a and 2017b).

However, there are numerous barriers to a successful gleaning operation as well. Because most 

operate as not-for-profit entities and the food recovered is often donated, there is little monetary 

incentive for growers to participate. In fact, the model is built on largely charitable funding external 

to the growers, originating from a variety of sources that may or may not be sustainable over time 

(NGP, 2017a). Additionally, though there are some benefits to the growers through reduced tax 

liability, removal of unwanted produce, or public service, the direct monetary benefits may not 

exist at all, while the real (sunk) costs of producing that food remain. Because gleaned produce 

has left the field, a grower may additionally have to invest in compost or other agricultural inputs, 

which could have been generated by plowing under the surplus food. For a gleaning operation to be 

sustainable and successful, it needs to provide value to the consumer (through food donations) as 

well as to the supplier (the grower) through some demonstrated means.

Food Recovery, Recycling, and Alternative Markets

The persistence of food insecurity in the United States suggests that food recovery may be a potential solution to both food loss and food insecurity. However, perishability, transportation costs, and 

fragmented infrastructure complicate comprehensive recovery efforts (Buzby et al., 2014b). The 

number and capacity of food recovery and diversion companies have exploded recently, which may 

improve landfill diversion rates.27

26 For example, most fruit trees are picked clean annually to encourage the next year’s crop, except for citrus and avocados, which can have fruit on the tree for multiple seasons. Additionally, greens, cucumbers, peppers, and tomatoes are kept 

trimmed or picked to encourage continued production. 

27 Even if some food is diverted or donated, there is still food that never makes it to these secondary outlets. Additionally, 

there is some concern that factoring these outlets into planting decisions could induce more planting, rather than less. (Gallagher et al., 2019). 
21

Economic Drivers of Food Loss at the Farm and Pre-Retail Sectors: A Look at the Produce Supply Chain in the United States, EIB-216

USDA, Economic Research Service

Some companies create value-added products out of surplus produce, essentially “recycling” the 

previously lost produce. For example, Misfit Juicery and Ugly Juice, located in New York and the 

San Francisco Bay Area, respectively, purchase surplus produce, juice it, then sell the juice directly 

to consumers or to retail locations. Other companies like Ocado and Rubies in the Rubble sell fruit 

leather and condiments using surplus produce as a way to combat loss and recover more produce 

(Gallagher et al. 2019). If food recovery efforts entail lower transaction costs or provide a new use 

for the previously unused product, they are much more likely to be undertaken by producers as a 

means of lowering observed food loss.

An additional potential solution to reducing food loss is through secondary markets for excess 

or cosmetically imperfect produce. Cosmetic and standards issues in produce are challenging to 

manage, even with alternative markets. Though processing markets for many commodities exist for 

a lower grade product, market demand may not line up with the supply of damaged produce, which 

varies over the course of a season.28 Further, many growers decide prior to the growing season if 

their product is intended for fresh or processed markets, and they make pre-production decisions, 

such as variety selection, accordingly. There are other barriers as well. For example, processed 

produce is more likely to be grown under contract, and many growers are not physically located 

near the processor, meaning the growers’ access may be limited geographically or through market 

structure (i.e., no contracts). Finally, many commodities, such as tomatoes, have entirely separate markets for fresh and processed varieties. In such cases, because the varieties grown for fresh 

consumption differ from those grown for canning, it is not feasible for a grower to simply switch 

from the fresh to processed market.

Several companies have created a model where consumers pay for a subscription service and receive 

a box of “ugly” produce. Among these companies are Imperfect Produce, Perfectly Imperfect 

Produce, Hungry Harvest, and Full Harvest, which source below-grade or "ugly" produce that would 

otherwise have been wasted and direct it to consumers. In a traditional Community Supported 

Agriculture (CSA) model, farmers are paid 100 percent of the price of the box at the beginning of 

the season, at the time of year when expenses are high, but revenues are low. This model modifies 

the traditional CSA by sourcing surplus product from multiple farms (at a significant discount) or 

retail outlets and consolidating this into a single packaged consumer product, potentially supporting 

multiple suppliers29 (see box “Retail Space for Cosmetically Imperfect Produce”).

Research shows that the surplus-recovery business model used by these firms can be economically 

beneficial (Richards and Hamilton, 2018). These technology-based food recovery systems operate 

by efficiently bridging two-sided markets, in which consumers demand a variety of suppliers, and 

suppliers demand a large number of consumers. Further, these market intermediaries can work efficiently by creating a previously untapped market for produce sales, likely greater than the opportunities a single grower would have on its own.

In order for these new initiatives to continue to be profitable, there must be some benefit to the 

farmer, and society more generally. Currently, farmers can receive a tax deduction for charitable 

donations of excess produce, but these benefits do not exist for food sold to secondary sellers like 

28 Fruit and vegetable processors act much more like a typical food processor, with a steady, contracted supply of inputs. 

Fresh fruit and vegetable growing, however, is much more seasonal, and food loss (or surplus) that might be sold into these 

alternative markets is sporadic. This complication in timing makes selling surplus produce into these channels more complicated and not a stable, long-term solution. 

29 With this model, the consumers still pay up front, typically month-to-month or weekly rather than for the whole season. 

Growers are likely paid more traditionally at a piece rate by the aggregator. 
22

Economic Drivers of Food Loss at the Farm and Pre-Retail Sectors: A Look at the Produce Supply Chain in the United States, EIB-216

USDA, Economic Research Service

Imperfect Produce, even at a steep discount. While this model does provide an outlet for less-thanperfect produce, some critics have questioned the unintended consequences of creating a market for 

wasted produce that otherwise might have been donated to food banks or sold directly to consumers 

as part of a traditional CSA program. Additionally, because of the sporadic nature of ugly produce, 

a steady supply is difficult to guarantee, causing some companies to fill orders with produce from 

more traditional outlets.

Retail Space for Cosmetically Imperfect Produce

Several grocery stores and larger food retailers have introduced new marketing strategies to 

market imperfect produce, although the persistence of some of their initiatives is unclear. In 

2017, the grocery chain Hannaford began a program called “Misfits,” which placed reducedprice produce that was misshaped in visible locations in several stores around the Northeast 

(Haines, 2017). In 2019, Kroger introduced a line of branded misfit produce called “Pickuliar 

Picks” in connection with its Zero Hunger, Zero Waste campaign (Rose, 2018). Walmart has 

launched similar campaigns marketing “ugly” produce incorporating discounted product. 

Walmart’s examples seem more specifically targeted at particular crops, including one for potatoes called “Spuglies” that debuted at 400 stores in Texas in 2016 and a separate campaign for 

apples called “I’m Perfect” in 2016, which launched at 300 stores in Florida (Haddon, 2016). 

These initiatives are a part of Walmart’s larger effort toward monitoring spoilage in its supply 

chains. In a slight variation on this model, Daily Table based its business model around creating 

a low-cost grocery option for community residents without the stigma of receiving free food 

from a food charity such as a food pantry. Daily Table was founded by a former president of 

Trader Joe’s and operates with support of donors, with a focus on healthy food and community 

engagement. While many of these initiatives are new, some of the U.S.-based solutions have 

been in existence for over 70 years. Grocery Outlet, which was founded in 1946 and operates 

225 retail stores, sources products that otherwise would be wasted and sells them at a discount. 

Internationally, other grocers and cooperatives have made efforts to integrate ugly produce into 

grocery chains. In France, the chain Intermarche launched a campaign called “Inglorious Fruits 

and Vegetables.” In Portugal, a group of citizens with concerns beyond food loss founded a 

cooperative called Fruita Feia, or “Ugly Fruit” (Godoy, 2014). The creators of Fuita Feia developed the organization in response to the economic downturn in Western Europe. In general, 

retailers in Europe have made headway in ugly produce campaigns and food loss mitigation; 

yet, as with the U.S. examples, the lasting impact that these groups have had on food loss across 

produce supply chains is unclear. Looking into the future, whether these efforts can significantly reduce food loss is an unanswered question.

Recently, there have been some high profile roll-backs of these programs. Walmart, Whole 

Foods, and others national retailers have discontinued their blemished fruits and vegetables, 

citing inconsistent consumer interest. Another cited constraint is the difference between the 

expected discount by consumers and what is feasible for producers and retailers (Choi and 

McFetridge, 2019). While the failure of these types of marketing strategies in traditional 

retail settings calls into question the feasibility of this approach long term, some suggest more 

consumer education on the value of these products still needs to occur (Gallagher et al., 2019 

and Dunning et al., 2019). 
23

Economic Drivers of Food Loss at the Farm and Pre-Retail Sectors: A Look at the Produce Supply Chain in the United States, EIB-216

USDA, Economic Research Service

Government and Private Sector Investments To Reduce Food Loss

Because food loss occurs for many reasons, one grower is often unable to conceive of and 

incorporate a solution on his or her own. Thus, larger entities, such as local, State, and Federal 

Governments, alongside outside investors have begun to address food loss throughout the 

supply chain.

USDA’s National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA) is funding numerous research projects aimed to curtail food loss. The Cyber-Physical Systems Competitive Grants Program is a 

joint funding opportunity with the National Science Foundation (NSF) focused on scientific and 

engineering principles that underpin the integration of cyber and physical elements. Goals for 

the program include increasing food security through the development of high-output, controlled 

environment agricultural technologies and systems and more robust agricultural systems in 

general (NSF, 2019). In addition, grants provided through the Agriculture Economics and Rural 

Communities and Agriculture and Food Research Initiative with researchers at Arizona State 

University and the University of Georgia aim to apply machine learning to the food waste supply 

chain and to understand the effects of food retail density on municipal waste levels (USDA, NIFA 

2017 and 2019a).

Additionally, NIFA funds projects that touch on a number of issues related to food loss through 

the Specialty Crops Research Initiative (SCRI). The SCRI works to address the needs of the 

specialty crop industry by improving crop characteristics; addressing threats from pests and 

disease; increasing production efficiency, productivity, and processing; researching and implementing new technology; and developing methods to control food safety hazards (USDA, NIFA, 

2019b). Similarly, Value-Added Producer Grants, administered through the USDA’s office of Rural 

Development helps agricultural producers enter into value-added activities related to the processing 

and marketing of new products, with the goals of generating new products, creating and expanding 

marketing opportunities, and increasing producer income (USDA RD, 2019). Although food loss is 

never explicitly stated in the goals of these projects, progress on any one of these topics could help 

to curb food loss at the producer level or throughout the early supply chain.

USDA’s Agricultural Research Service (ARS) also has numerous projects underway that have begun 

to address food loss specifically for fruit and vegetable markets. The Healthy Processed Foods 

Research initiative has already begun to bring new products and market access to certain growers. 

With a stated goal to “Increase the commercial value of plant-based, postharvest waste materials ... 

by reprocessing into healthful food ingredients,” this research initiative is designed to use processing 

technologies to improve grower incomes and total food usage. Findings have improved or identified 

markets for discarded potato skins, whole grape seed flour, persimmons, and mushrooms (USDA, 

ARS, 2019a). 

In addition, the Produce Safety and Microbiology National Program has many projects underway 

and completed on the microbial pathogens associated with foodborne illness (USDA, ARS, 2019b). 

While they may not directly address food loss as a primary goal, any projects that improve safety 

and marketability of produce have the potential to improve grower income and reduce food lost at 

the farm or early supply chain.

Another frequently cited factor limiting food recovery, and thus driving food loss, is failure in logistics (Buzby et al., 2014b). Along the supply chain from farms to wholesalers, inventory management 

errors and unpredictable market shifts contribute to food loss (ReFED, 2016). The manifestations 

of these challenges include identifying excess food along a supply chain, communicating the avail-
24

Economic Drivers of Food Loss at the Farm and Pre-Retail Sectors: A Look at the Produce Supply Chain in the United States, EIB-216

USDA, Economic Research Service

ability of excess food to potential users, and coordinating the transportation of food in a timely 

and efficient manner. For example, many growers do not realize how much of their food loss can 

be directed into secondary markets because of failures to communicate loss information along the 

supply chain. In addition, because of the size of a single farming operation, it may not be feasible to 

collect such information in a rigorous and systematic way.

Over the past several years, the technology and venture capital worlds have taken an interest in food 

loss. Logistics software firms are developing solutions to mitigate food loss through better communication by identifying areas for reduction and diversion of unused food. Using their software products, these firms help clients more easily communicate among their units: for example, data sharing 

between sales and purchasing departments can help avoid over-purchasing of products. One initiative is Meal Connect, sponsored by Feeding America, which serves as a platform to connect food 

donors with needy food banks and their partners (Feeding America, 2019). Additionally, companies 

are able to track changes in food loss over time, allowing them to monitor their progress toward 

sustainability goals and enhance employee and customer engagement (Gallagher et al., 2019).

One startup began as an online marketplace, but after early difficulties, the firm decided to focus 

more on software and inventory management (Food Cowboy, 2019). This company found that a 

major impediment was matching supply with demand, as well as providing transportation for pickup 

and delivery. By working on better inventory management systems, in concert with purchasing 

departments, the company was able to implement scalable plans that increased communication, 

built data, and found alternative buyers. Another group of startups works on reducing spoilage along 

the supply chain. For example, one firm has released a proprietary coating for avocados and other 

fruit that slows ripening (McShane, 2019). Its product acts to slow water loss and oxidation, thus 

extending shelf-life for retailers and consumers. Similarly, firms are producing an edible biopolymer 

coating to extend produce shelf-life and support quality through the supply chain (Yousuf et 

al., 2018). USDA, ARS, too, has multiple projects aimed at extending product life. The Genetic 

Improvement of Fruits and Vegetables Laboratory works across commodities to improve shelf-life, 

overcome transportation difficulties, and produce new varieties through selective breeding and 

development of genomic resources (USDA, ARS, 2019c).

The investments by outside entities highlight the growing interest in curbing food loss as it pertains 

to all stages of the supply chain for fruits and vegetables. The strategies outlined previously often 

begin with the goal of reducing observable food loss. However, for food loss reduction efforts to 

succeed at all stages of the supply chain, there needs to be a demonstrated economic value starting 

with growers and following through to the final consumer (whether in a traditional market or for 

donated food). Regardless of impacts on food loss, some growers have begun to streamline their 

own supply chain to more efficiently reach the final consumer and to increase the portion of retail 

value they receive. 

Direct-to-consumer sales channels and streamlining logistics are both gaining popularity among 

growers and consumers. These strategies are designed to move food more efficiently from the 

producer to the consumer, and/or extend the shelf-life for fresh produce. Each strategy’s aim is to 

improve growers' share of the consumer dollar, but the effect on overall food loss is not fully known.

Access to farmers’ markets or other diversified markets can be an important factor in limiting food 

loss in some cases. In addition to the ugly produce mentioned previously, produce that is too ripe to 

ship over large distances can be sold immediately to consumers in farm stores or farmers’ markets, 

reducing the amount of produce loss. Similarly, by selling to schools that have a farm-to-school 
25

Economic Drivers of Food Loss at the Farm and Pre-Retail Sectors: A Look at the Produce Supply Chain in the United States, EIB-216

USDA, Economic Research Service

lunch program and other local or direct markets, growers can receive benefits of diversifying their 

sales and selling product that might otherwise have been unsalvageable (Izumi et al., 2010). These 

outlets, which tend to be more locally focused and thus have a quicker turn-around for rapidly 

ripening product, provide an immediate outlet for produce.

While these markets operate well when established, it is typically outside the scope of a single 

grower to establish a farmers’ market or create the infrastructure necessary to sell into a new market 

channel while still maintaining established market channels. Accessing new markets with new standards requires heightened management effort and expertise; however, studies have demonstrated the 

benefits of growers’ increasing use of less traditional market channels. The increased costs of participation in local markets, such as hauling and selling produce themselves, have been demonstrated 

to be offset by higher prices, quicker product turnover, and reduced uncertainty in the marketplace 

when selling in innovative or emerging market channels (Verhaegen and Huylenbroeck, 2001). 

Recent research has shown that consumers buy and spend more on fruits and vegetables if they 

shop at a direct-to-consumer outlet, such as a farmers’ market, suggesting that it may be a profitable 

outlet for growers with produce that may not survive cross-country shipping (Stewart and Dong, 

2018). Finally, these direct outlets have been shown to open new markets for consumers who might 

not otherwise have had access to fresh produce, strengthening the financial incentives for growers to 

participate (Evans et al., 2012; Dimitri et al., 2015).
26

Economic Drivers of Food Loss at the Farm and Pre-Retail Sectors: A Look at the Produce Supply Chain in the United States, EIB-216

USDA, Economic Research Service

Conclusions

Many factors contribute to food loss at the farm level. This study identifies common themes and 

drivers, and identifies several public and private investments aimed at curbing food loss. If food is 

never produced with an intention of it going to landfill, this study reveals other underlying drivers 

of loss exist, which may include price volatility in the marketplace, labor constraints, supply chain 

rigidities, grades and standards, consumer preferences, or existing policies that unintentionally exacerbate food loss. Once the effects, incentives, and competing goals are considered together, one can 

begin to understand how to balance resources devoted to reducing food loss alongside other goals, 

such as maintaining farm profitability.

Reducing food loss, like any singular focus in a complex system, does not occur in a vacuum, and 

each action has an opportunity cost. Food loss reduction may be greatest when considered alongside 

other competing factors for the individual grower, processor, retailer, and consumer. If reducing 

food loss takes away resources devoted to farm profitability, for example, it is unlikely that any 

grower would choose to participate. However, if reducing food loss is considered alongside more 

traditional goals like improving farm income, industry adoption of food loss initiatives may be more 

likely. Additionally, how the issue is framed (e.g., as a distribution problem, as a way to feed hungry 

people, as a path to increase farm profit) may lead to different mitigation strategies that produce 

different “winners” and “losers.”

There are emerging retail markets and opportunities that can both alleviate food loss and improve 

growers' income, as evidenced by consumer interest in "ugly" or "imperfect" produce. As the conditions for food loss are multifaceted, so, too, are the strategies that alleviate that loss and improve 

grower welfare. This study attempts to identify likely contributing factors to food loss early in the 

supply chain. However, collecting and analyzing nationally representative data could identify which 

of the potential driving factors are most significant and highlight the opportunities to most substantially reduce food loss.
27

Economic Drivers of Food Loss at the Farm and Pre-Retail Sectors: A Look at the Produce Supply Chain in the United States, EIB-216

USDA, Economic Research Service

References

Andreyeva, T., M.W. Long, and K.D. Brownell. 2010. “The Impact of Food Prices on Consumption: 

A Systematic Review of Research on the Price Elasticity of Demand for Food,” American 

Journal of Public Health 100(2), pp.216-22.

Arnade, C., L. Calvin, and F. Kuchler. 2009. “Consumer Response to a Food Safety Shock: 

The 2006 Food-Borne Illness Outbreak of E. coli O157: H7 Linked to Spinach.” Review of 

Agricultural Economics 31(4), pp.734-50.

Astill, G., and T. Minor. 2019. “Food Loss in the Romaine Lettuce Industry,” in Economics of Food 

Loss in Produce: From the Farm to the Pre-retail Supply Chain, Taylor and Francis Group.

Astill, G., T. Minor, L. Calvin, and S. Thornsbury. 2019. U.S. Produce Growers' Decisionmaking 

Under Evolving Food Safety Standards, EIB-210, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic 

Research Service.

Astill, G., T. Minor, L. Calvin, and S. Thornsbury. 2018. Before Implementation of the Food 

Safety Modernization Act's Produce Rule: A Survey of U.S. Produce Growers, EIB-194, U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.

Baker, G., L. Calvin, A. Gillman, L. Kitnoja, T. Osland, P. Pearson, L. Prezkop, B.E. Roe, E. Spang, 

and J.B. Tooley. 2019. “Tomato Tales: Comparing Loss-Reduction Drivers and Opportunities 

Across U.S. Fresh Tomato Supply Chains,” in Economics of Food Loss in Produce: From the 

Farm to the Pre-Retail Supply Chain, Taylor and Francis Group.

Bazerghi, C., F.H. McKay, and M. Dunn. 2016. “The Role of Food Banks in Addressing Food 

Insecurity: A Systematic Review,” Journal of Community Health 41(4), pp.732-40.

Buzby, J., J. Campuzano, C. Ammon, J.T. Bentley, and B. Padera. 2016. Updated Supermarket 

Shrink Estimates for Fresh Foods and Their Implications for ERS Loss-Adjusted Food 

Availability Data, EIB-155, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.

Buzby, J., J. Bentley, B. Padera, C. Ammon, and J. Campuzano. 2015. “Estimated Fresh Produce 

Shrink and Food Loss in US Supermarkets,” Agriculture 5(3), pp.626-48.

Buzby, J., H.F. Wells, and J. Hyman. 2014a. The Estimated Amount, Value, and Calories of 

Postharvest Food Losses at the Retail and Consumer Levels in the United States, EIB-121, U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.

Buzby, J.C., H.F. Wells, and J. Aulakh. 2014b. “Food Loss—Questions About the Amount and 

Causes Still Remain,” Amber Waves, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research 

Service, June.

Buzby, J.C., H.F. Wells, B. Axtman, and J. Mickey, 2009. Supermarket Loss Estimates for Fresh 

Fruit, Vegetables, Meat, Poultry, and Seafood and Their Use in the ERS Loss-Adjusted Food 

Availability Data, EIB-44, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.

California Leafy Green Marketing Agreement (CA LGMA). 2019. Commodity Specific Food 

Safety Guidelines for the Production and Harvest of Lettuce and Leafy Greens. Accessed on the 

LGMA website.
28

Economic Drivers of Food Loss at the Farm and Pre-Retail Sectors: A Look at the Produce Supply Chain in the United States, EIB-216

USDA, Economic Research Service

Calvin, L., R.L. Cook, M. Denbaly, C. Dimitri, L. Glaser, C. Handy, M. Jekanowski, P. Kaufman, 

B. Krissoff, G. Thompson. 2001. U.S. Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Marketing: Emerging Trade 

Practices, Trends, and Issues, AER-795, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research 

Service.

Canali, M., K. Östergren, P. Amani, L. Aramyan, S. Sijtsema, O. Korhonen, K. Silvennoinen, 

G. Moates, K. Waldron, and C. O’Connor. 2014. “Drivers of Current Food Waste Generation, 

Threats of Future Increase and Opportunities for Reduction,” EU FUSIONS. Canali (ed.).

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 2018. “Multistate Outbreak of E. coli O157:H7 

Infections Linked to Romaine Lettuce” (Final Update). Accessed on the CDC website.

Charlton, D., and J.E. Taylor. 2013. “Mexicans Are Leaving Farm Work: What Does It Mean for 

U.S. Agriculture and Immigration Policy?” Agricultural and Resource Economics Update, 

Volume 16, pp.1-4.

Choi, C., and S. McFetridge. 2019. “The Attraction to “Ugly Produce” Might Be Ending for Grocers 

and Shoppers,” Des Moines Register, February 21.

Creamer, N., and L.K. Johnson. 2018. “Introducing Farm-Level Loss Into the Food Waste 

Discussion,” Huffington Post.

De Gorter, H. 2014. “Economics of Food Losses and Waste: Concepts and Practical Implications,” 

Background study prepared at the request of the Agricultural and Development Economics 

Division (ESA) of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome.

Dimitri, C., L. Oberholtzer, M. Zive, and C. Sandolo. 2015. “Enhancing Food Security of 

Low-Income Consumers: An Investigation of Financial Incentives for Use at Farmers Markets,” 

Food Policy 52, pp.64-70.

Dunning, R., L. Johnson, and K. Boys. 2019. “Putting Dollars to Waste: Estimating the Value of 

On-Farm Food Loss,” Choices, Quarter 1.

Ellison, B., M.K. Muth, E. Golan, 2019. “Opportunities and Challenges in Conducting Economic 

Research on Food Loss and Waste,” Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, Volume 41, Issue 

1, March, pp 1-19.

Evans, A.E., R. Jennings, A.W. Smiley, J.L. Medina, S.V Sharma, R. Rutledge, M.H. Stigler, and 

D.M. Hoelscher. 2012. “Introduction of Farm Stands in Low-Income Communities Increases 

Fruit and Vegetable Consumption Among Community Residents,” Health & Place 18(5), pp. 

1137-43.

Fan, M., S. Gabbard, A. Alves Pena, and J.M. Perloff. 2015. “Why Do Fewer Agricultural Workers 

Migrate Now?” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 97(3), pp.665-79.

Feeding America. 2019. “Meal Connect.” Accessed on the Meal Connect website.

Feeding America. 2014. “Hunger in America in 2014.”

Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations (FAO). 2018. “Technical Platform on the 

Measurement and Reduction of Food Loss and Waste. Food and Agriculture Organization of the 

United Nations.” Accessed on the FAO website on November 1, 2018.
29

Economic Drivers of Food Loss at the Farm and Pre-Retail Sectors: A Look at the Produce Supply Chain in the United States, EIB-216

USDA, Economic Research Service

Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations (FAO). 2011. “Global Food Losses 

and Food Waste–Extent, Causes and Prevention. SAVE FOOD: An Initiative on Food Loss and 

Waste Reduction.”

Food Cowboy. 2019. “Food Waste in the Supply Chain.” Accessed on the Food Cowboy website.

Gallagher, L., A.S. Hsu-Flanders, and N.L.W. Wilson. 2019. “Potential Solutions to Food Loss,” in 

Economics of Food Loss in Produce: From the Farm to the Pre-Retail Supply Chain, Taylor and 

Francis Group.

Golan, E., T. Minor, and S. Thornsbury. 2019. “Loss and Waste, Are We Really Measuring a 

Problem?” in Economics of Food Loss in Produce: From the Farm to the Pre-Retail Supply 

Chain, Taylor and Francis Group.

Godoy, M. 2014. In Europe, Ugly Sells In The Produce Aisle. National Public Radio. Food For 

Thought. Dec. 9.

Gunders, D. 2017. Wasted: How America Is Losing up to 40 Percent of Its Food From Farm to Fork 

to Landfill, Second edition, New York: Natural Resources Defense Council.

Gunders, D. 2012. Wasted: How America Is Losing up to 40 Percent of Its Food From Farm to Fork 

to Landfill, New York: Natural Resources Defense Council.

Guthman, J. 2017. “Paradoxes of the Border: Labor Shortages and Farmworker Agency in 

Reworking California’s Strawberry Fields,” Economic Geography 93(1), 24-43.

Haddon, H. 2016. “Supermarkets Make Stars Out of Weird Apples, Knobbled Carrots and 

“Spuglies,” The Wall Street Journal, September 16.

Haines, J. 2017. “Hannaford to Ugly Produce—Looks Are Not Everything,” Bangor Daily News, 

March 15.

Hanson, C., B. Lipinski, K. Robertson, D. Dias, I. Gavilan, P. Gréverath, S. Ritter, J. Fonseca, R. 

Van Otterdijk, T. Timmermans, and J. Lomax. 2016. “Food Loss and Waste Accounting and 

Reporting Standard,” WRI, Nestlé, CGF, FAO, EU-funded FUSIONS project, UNEP, WRAP, 

WBCSD, NRI. URL.

Hill, A.E. 2019. “The Labor Supply of U.S. Agricultural Workers,” UC Davis Working Paper Series.

Hitaj, C., F. Last, and S. Zahniser. 2019. “Labor Constraints as a Source of Food Loss,” in 

Economics of Food Loss in Produce: From the Farm to the Pre-Retail Supply Chain, Taylor and 

Francis Group.

Hodges, R.J., J.C. Buzby, and B. Bennett. 2011. “Postharvest Losses and Waste in Developed and 

Less Developed Countries: Opportunities to Improve Resource Use,” The Journal of Agricultural 

Science 149(S1), pp. 37-45.

Hoover, D. 2017. “Estimating Quantities and Types of Food Waste at the City Level,” Natural 

Resources Defense Council (NRDC). Accessible on the NRDC website.
30

Economic Drivers of Food Loss at the Farm and Pre-Retail Sectors: A Look at the Produce Supply Chain in the United States, EIB-216

USDA, Economic Research Service

Hsu-Flanders, A.S., L. Gallagher, and N.L. Wilson, W. 2019. “Strawberries: Food Loss and 

Loss Prevention Opportunities,” Economics of Food Loss in Produce: From the Farm to the 

Pre-Retail Supply Chain, Taylor and Francis Group.

Izumi, B.T., D.W. Wright, and M.W. Hamm. 2010. “Market Diversification and Social Benefits: 

Motivations of Farmers Participating in Farm to School Programs,” Journal of Rural Studies

26(4), pp. 374-82.

Johansson, R., M. Peters, and R. House. 2007. Regional Environment and Agriculture Programming 

Model (REAP), TB-1916, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.

Kahneman, D., J.L. Knetsch, and R.H. Thaler. 1991. “Anomalies: The Endowment Effect, Loss 

Aversion, and Status Quo Bias,” Journal of Economic Perspectives 5(1), pp. 193-206.

Kitinoja, L., S. Saran, S.K. Roy, and A.A. Kader. 2011. “Postharvest Technology for Developing 

Countries: Challenges and Opportunities in Research, Outreach and Advocacy,” Journal of the 

Science of Food and Agriculture 91(4), pp. 597-603.

Kitinoja, L., V.Y. Tokala, and A. Brondy. 2018. A Review of Global Postharvest Loss Assessments 

in Plant-Based Food Crops: Recent Findings and Measurement Gaps,” Journal of Postharvest 

Technology 6(4).

Kumar, D., and P. Kalita. 2017. “Reducing Postharvest Losses During Storage of Grain Crops to 

Strengthen Food Security in Developing Countries,” Foods 6(1), p. 8.

Lipinski, B., C. Hanson, J. Lomax, L. Kitinoja, R. Waite, and T. Searchinger. 2013. “Reducing Food 

Loss and Waste,” World Resources Institute Working Paper, pp. 1-40.

MacDonald, J.M., and P. Korb. 2011. Agricultural Contracting Update: Contracts in 2008, EIB-72, 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.

McShane, G. 2019. “Apeel Sciences to Join Europe’s Fight Against Food Waste With Shelf-Life 

Solution Launch,” Produce Business U.K.

Minor, T., and Thornsbury, S. 2019. “Introduction” Economics of Food Loss in Produce: From the 

Farm to the Pre-retail supply chain. Taylor and Francis.

Minor, T., G. Hawkes, E. McLaughlin, K. Park, and L. Calvin. 2019a. Food Safety Requirements 

for Produce Growers: Retailer Demands and the Food Safety Modernization Act, EIB-206, U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.

Minor, T., C. Hitaj, F. Kuchler. S.R. Skorbiansky, B. Roe, and S. Thornsbury. 2019b. “Exploring 

Food Loss From Farm-to-Retail in the Produce Industry,” Choices, Quarter 1.

Muth, M., S. Karns, S. Nielsen, J. Buzby, and H. Farah-Wells. 2011. Consumer-Level Food Loss 

Estimates and Their Use in the ERS Loss-Adjusted Food Availability Data, TB-1927, U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.

National Gleaning Project (NGP). 2015. “The National Gleaning Project: Guide to the Online 

Gleaning Resources Hub,” Vermont Law School, Center for Agricultural Food Systems.
31

Economic Drivers of Food Loss at the Farm and Pre-Retail Sectors: A Look at the Produce Supply Chain in the United States, EIB-216

USDA, Economic Research Service

National Gleaning Project (NGP). 2017a. “Models for Success: A Set of Case Studies Examining 

Gleaning Efforts Across the United States,” Vermont Law School, Center for Agricultural 

Food Systems.

National Gleaning Project (NGP). 2017b. “Reducing Food Insecurity and Food Waste: Improving 

the National Framework to Support Gleaning Operations,” Vermont Law School, Center for 

Agricultural Food Systems.

National Science Foundation (NSF). 2019. Cyber-Physical Systems (CPS) PROGRAM 

SOLICITATION. NSF 19-553.

Parr, B., J. Bond, and T. Minor. 2019a. Vegetables and Pulses Outlook, U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Economic Research Service, May.

Parr, B., J. Bond, and T. Minor. 2019b. “Vegetables and Pulses Yearbook Data,” U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Economic Research Service (ERS). Accessible on the ERS website.

Parr, B., J. Bond, and T. Minor. 2018. Vegetables and Pulses Outlook, U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Economic Research Service, October.

Perez, A. 2018. “Fruit and Tree Nuts Yearbook Data,” U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic 

Research Service (ERS). Accessible on the ERS website.

Perez, A., and T. Minor. 2018. Fruit and Tree Nuts Outlook, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Economic Research Service, September.

Porat, R., A. Lichter, L.A. Terry, R. Harker, and J. Buzby. 2018. “Postharvest Losses of Fruit and 

Vegetables During Retail and in Consumers’ Homes: Quantifications, Causes, and Means of 

Prevention,” Postharvest Biology and Technology 139, pp. 135-49.

ReFED. 2016. A Roadmap to Reduce USF Waste by 20 Percent. Accessible on ReFED website.

Richards, T.J., and S.F. Hamilton. 2018. “Food Waste in the Sharing Economy,” Food Policy 75, pp. 

109-23.

Richards, T.J., and A.K. Mishra. 2019. “Empirical Modeling of Food Loss in the Produce Sector,” in 

Economics of Food Loss in Produce: From the Farm to the Pre-Retail Supply Chain. Taylor and 

Francis Group.

Rose, L. 2018. Kroger's New Produce Program Targets Food Waste. The Daily Meal. Oct. 17.

Skorbiansky, S.R. and B. Ellison. 2019. “Contracting and Quality Standards in Fresh Produce 

Markets and How it Impacts Food Loss,” in Economics of Food Loss in Produce: From the Farm 

to the Pre-Retail Supply Chain, Taylor and Francis Group.

Smith, V.H., and B.K. Goodwin. 1996. “Crop Insurance, Moral Hazard, and Agricultural Chemical 

Use,” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 78.2: 428-38.

Stenmarck, Â., C. Jensen, T. Quested, G. Moates, M. Buksti, B. Cseh, S. Juul, A. Parry, A. Politano, 

B. Redlingshofer, and S. Scherhaufer. 2016. “Estimates of European Food Waste Levels,” IVL 

Swedish Environmental Research Institute.
32

Economic Drivers of Food Loss at the Farm and Pre-Retail Sectors: A Look at the Produce Supply Chain in the United States, EIB-216

USDA, Economic Research Service

Stevens, A. 2019. “Temperature, Wages, and Agricultural Labor Productivity,” UC Berkeley 

Working Paper, Accessible on UC Berkeley website.

Stewart, H., and D. Dong. 2018. The Relationship Between Patronizing Direct-to-Consumer 

Outlets and a Household’s Demand for Fruits and Vegetables, ERR-242, U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Economic Research Service.

Stewart, H., J. Hyman, A. Carlson, and E. Frazao. 2016. The Cost of Satisfying Fruit and Vegetable 

Recommendations in the Dietary Guidelines, EB-27, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic 

Research Service.

Taylor, J.E., D. Charlton, and A. Yúnez-Naude. 2012. “The End of Farm Labor Abundance,” Applied 

Economic Perspectives and Policy 34(4), pp. 587-98.

United States Code (USC). 1996. “Bill Emerson Good Samaritan Food Donation Act.”

United States Code (USC). 2011. Supplement 5, Title 26 - INTERNAL REVENUE CODE: PART 

VI - ITEMIZED DEDUCTIONS FOR INDIVIDUALS AND CORPORATIONS: Sec. 170 - 

Charitable, etc., contributions and gifts.

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2019. “Food Loss and Waste,” Accessible on the USDA 

web site.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Marketing Service (USDA, AMS). 2019a. “Grades 

and Standards: Fruits,” Accessible on the USDA, AMS website.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Marketing Service (USDA, AMS). 2019b. “Grades and 

Standards: Vegetables,” Accessible on the USDA, AMS website.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Marketing Service (USDA, AMS). 2019c. “Specialty 

Crops Marketing Orders & Agreements,” Accessible on the USDA, AMS website.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Marketing Service (USDA, AMS). 2017. “Fruit, 

Vegetables & Specialty Crop Marketing Orders and Agreements,” Fact Sheet. Accessible on the 

USDA, AMS website.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service (USDA, ARS). 2019a. “Healthy 

Processed Foods Research. Adding Value to Plant-Based Waste Materials Through Development 

of Novel, Healthy Ingredients and Functional Foods,” Accessible on the USDA, ARS website.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service (USDA, ARS). 2019b. “Produce 

Safety and Microbiology Research,” Accessible on the USDA, ARS website.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service (USDA, ARS). 2019c. “Genetic 

Improvement for Fruits & Vegetables Laboratory: Beltsville, MD,” Accessible on the USDA, 

ARS website.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service (USDA, ERS). 2018. “Food 

Availability (Per Capita) Data System,” Accessible on the USDA, ERS website.
33

Economic Drivers of Food Loss at the Farm and Pre-Retail Sectors: A Look at the Produce Supply Chain in the United States, EIB-216

USDA, Economic Research Service

U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Institute of Food and Agriculture (USDA, NIFA). 2017. 

“Food Waste: A Market-Based Solution Using Commercial Peer-to-Peer Mutualization Systems,” 

Accessible on the USDA, NIFA website.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Institute of Food and Agriculture (USDA, NIFA). 2019a. 

“Food Waste and Food Retail Density,” Accessible on the USDA, NIFA website.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Institute of Food and Agriculture (USDA, NIFA). 2019b. 

“Specialty Crop Research Initiative (SCRI),” Accessible on the USDA, NIFA website.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Rural Development (USDA, RD). 2019. “Value Added Producer 

Grants,” Accessible on the USDA website.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2017. “Food Recovery Hierarchy,” Accessed from 

the EPA website on November 1, 2018.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2018. “Advancing Sustainable Materials 

Management: 2015 Fact Sheet.”

U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO). 1977. Food Waste: An Opportunity to Improve 

Resource Use, Report to Congress.

Verhaegen, I., and G. Van Huylenbroeck. 2001. “Costs and Benefits for Farmers Participating in 

Innovative Marketing Channels for Quality Food Products,” Journal of Rural Studies 17(4), pp. 

443-56.

Vitiello, D., J.A. Grisso, R. Fischman, and K.L. Whiteside. 2013. Food Relief Goes Local: 

Gardening, Gleaning, and Farming for Food Banks in the US, Center for Public Health 

Initiatives, Philadelphia.

Vitiello, D., J.A. Grisso, K.L. Whiteside, and R. Fischman. 2015. “From Commodity Surplus to 

Food Justice: Food Banks and Local Agriculture in the United States,” Agriculture and Human 

Values 32(3), pp. 419-30.

Weatherspoon, D., J. Oehmke, A. Dembélé, M. Coleman, T. Satimanon, and L. Weatherspoon. 2013. 

“Price and Expenditure Elasticities for Fresh Fruits in an Urban Food Desert,” Urban Studies

50(1), pp. 88-106.

World Wildlife Foundation (WWF). 2018. “No Food Left Behind Part 1: Underutilized Produce 

Ripe for Alternative Markets.”

World Wildlife Foundation (WWF). 2017. “Fighting Food Waste in Hotels.”

Yousuf, B., O.S. Qadri, and A.K. Srivastava. 2018. “Recent Developments in Shelf-Life Extension 

of Fresh-Cut Fruits and Vegetables by Application of Different Edible Coatings: A Review,” Lwt

89, pp. 198-209.

Zahniser, S., J. Taylor, T. Hertz, and D. Charlton. 2018. Farm Labor Markets in the United States 

and Mexico Pose Challenges for U.S. Agriculture, EIB-201, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Economic Research Service.