Significant quantities of edible produce are lost at the farm level. Amidst growing concern about the environmental impacts of food loss and waste, advocates have invested in exploring farm-level interventions that might reduce the environmental footprint of food. Farmers are obvious stakeholders in such efforts, yet their voices are often missing from the discussion. Drawing on interviews with 25 fresh produce growers in California, we show how on-farm losses are driven by efforts to mitigate economic risk within food supply chains. Buyers minimize risk by demanding consistent volumes of perfect produce, and growers in turn minimize their financial risks by holding back “imperfect” and surplus food. If food is likely to be rejected further down the chain, growers abandon it on the farm. Using the EPA food recovery hierarchy and the tools of life cycle analysis (LCA), we then compare the environmental impact of farm-level loss to downstream alternatives. While landfill disposal is common at retail and consumer levels, food lost at the farm level is tilled back into the soil or sold as animal feed. We conclude that some on-farm losses may prevent more environmentally harmful “waste,” defined here as landfilled food, further down the supply chain. Our analysis argues for an approach to remedying on-farm food loss that is both ambitious and cautious—one that recognizes the structural causes of loss and that considers how environmental risks can increase as food moves downstream.

The majority of the environmental impacts associated with the agri-food supply chain occur at the production phase. Interests in using life-cycle assessment (LCA) for accounting for agri-food supply chains as well as food losses and waste (FLW) has increased in recent years. Here, for the first time, we estimate production-phase embedded resources and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in California specialty crops considering on-farm food losses. We use primary, survey-derived qualitative and quantitative data to consider on-farm food loss prevention and avoided GHG emissions through two different scenarios applied in an illustrative example for processing peach at the production stage. Further, we contribute a mathematical approach for accounting for discrete, unique flows within the net flow of loss in a supply chain, in LCA. Through the detailed LCAs, we identify the hotspots for the four crops as on-farm diesel use, fertilizer application, direct water use, and electricity for irrigation pumping. Impacts from cultivation practices and the additional impacts from on-farm food losses vary significantly by crop. Including the losses in the LCAs resulted in increases in overall resource use and GHG emissions by 4–38% (percent varies depending on the crop type). We used the LCA models and a set of straightforward calculations to evaluate the environmental impacts of a prevention action (a 50% reduction in on-farm food losses) and the secondary use of end-of-life (EOL) biomass from processing peach. The results of this evaluation showed an 11% reduction in GHG emissions compared to the baseline (full harvest). In conclusion, by explicitly including the impacts of on-farm food losses in LCA, we highlight challenges and opportunities to target interventions that simultaneously reduce these losses and the associated environmental impacts in agricultural systems.

Efforts to recover on-farm food losses by emergency food organizations or businesses serving secondary markets have been promoted as a "win-win" solution to both food waste and hunger. We examined what it will take to realize this potential, drawing on interviews with 35 fresh produce growers and 15 representatives from food recovery organizations in California. By taking grower constraints seriously and identifying key dynamics in their relationships with food recovery partners, we provide a textured account of the relevant logistical and relational challenges and promising solutions. Our research makes three specific contributions: (1) providing a straightforward conceptual rubric to clarify when food recovery partnerships are likely to be more or less difficult to achieve; (2) highlighting key relational strategies or approaches that make success more likely, even if logistical barriers appear daunting; and (3) emphasizing the dynamic, developmental, and context-specific nature of recovery partnerships, such that "what works" will necessarily change over time and across different settings. Based on our analysis, successful partnerships require investments of time and attention that are in short supply, but necessary to establish and sustain recovery relationships. The path forward appears less rosy than presumed by those who focus on statistics suggesting a large recovery potential, but also more promising than presumed by those who see the structural challenges (both economic/logistical and social/relational) as inherently insurmountable.