On-farm food loss and waste is estimated to be 16% of the total agricultural-related greenhouse gas emissions globally, and reductions in these emissions have the potential to make a significant impact on climate change. There is a plethora of research being undertaken in this area across countries, food supply chains and stakeholders. However, differences in definitions, quantification methods, understanding of drivers and proposed solutions can be difficult to navigate. This narrative review provides a critical overview of the current research landscape of on-farm food loss and waste. The review has two objectives. Firstly, it provides a stock-take of on-farm food loss and waste definitions, quantification methods, causes and management options. Secondly, it provides researchers, policy makers and industry stakeholders with recommendations on opportunities to be pursued.

Consumers are increasingly demanding information regarding the characteristics of products, their place of origin and methods of production. A Geographical Indication (GI) can be understood as a way to meet these demands, as it protects the origin of the product, as well as its characteristics. In addition to contributing to territorial development, GI signs have the potential to add value to products and help producers to become more competitive. However, some authors argue that there are barriers that can prevent the benefits of GI from reaching producers. Therefore, this article aims to identify the barriers and benefits of GI for producers. To reach this end, a Systematic Literature Review was carried out. As a result, it was observed that among the main benefits offered by the GI are higher prices, access to markets and preservation of cultural identity. Regarding the challenges, it was highlighted the existence of inefficient institutions, organizational problems, power asymmetry and appropriation of value by the most powerful agents of the supply chain. To conclude, this paper shows that the difficulties and benefits of GI to producers are not absolute and vary from region to region. In this sense, further research on the impact of GI, especially in developing countries, is necessary. The results here presented may be used as a base for future research that search to identify the importance of GI for producers and may also contribute to the development of actions or public policies related to GI.

The primary goal of front of pack (FOP) labelling is to help consumers make healthier choices through communication. A secondary goal is to encourage producers to improve the nutritional composition of their products. Evidence has shown that (FOP) labelling can help consumers to make healthier food choices and has been an incentive for producers to improve product composition. As FOP labelling is seen as an important tool to improve food environments for public health purposes, the WHO supports initiatives of governments to implement an FOP labelling system. Based on the experiences of a wide range of countries over many years, possible success factors for such an FOP system have been defined, six of which are discussed in the present paper and used to evaluate the Dutch Choices Programme that was started in 2006. In the course of time a large number of producers joined the programme and the logo was recognised by more than 90 % of the consumers, but by 2016 the Dutch consumer organisation argued on the basis of their own research that a quarter of the consumers did not understand the colour coding of the logo and as a result the Dutch government decided to no longer support this logo and to introduce a nutrition app. The challenge that remains is to find a system that consumers understand well and that still encourages manufacturers of food to improve product composition. New technology-based data collecting initiatives might provide the right tools to develop such a system.

Cow–calf enterprises in the USA are widely divergent in size, locale, resource availability, management skill, and market focus. Furthermore, variation exists in dependence on the cow–calf enterprise as a primary source of income, perception about the utility of a particular management practice or technology, and assessment of cost: benefit resulting from implementation impact decisions. Enterprises with larger cow inventories, greater dependence on income from the cattle enterprise, and that retain ownership further into the supply chain beyond the cow–calf operation are more likely to institute management protocols such as vaccination programs, defined calving seasons, and reproductive technologies. Successful cow–calf managers place the highest priority on herd nutrition, pasture and range management, herd health, financial management marketing, production management, and genetics. Management practices are more likely to be adopted when they align with a manager's perception of the utility, labor availability, favorable cost: benefit outcomes and profit motivation.

Over the past decade, organic food sales and farmland have grown rapidly worldwide. As the US market for organic food has expanded, anecdotal evidence indicates that imports of organic food have increased. US organic handlers may be importing to meet consumer demand for out-of-season products, as well as products not grown domestically. Handlers may also be importing organic products that are in short supply or to reduce input costs. This paper provides the first examination of imports of organic products into the USA. Data from a national survey of certified organic handlers in 2007 are used to examine the extent, types and origins of imported organic commodities. A Heckman model is employed to investigate the factors that influence an organic handler's decision to import organic products, and the level at which organic handlers import a product. Summary results show that while many of the products being imported into the USA are those that cannot be produced domestically, such as coffee and tropical fruits, some oft-imported commodities are those that can be produced in the USA, such as soybeans, wheat, barley and berries. The summary results also show that organic handlers are procuring almost a half of their imported products from a few countries, including Canada, China, Mexico, Brazil and Indonesia. In the econometric analysis, we found those handlers prioritizing local suppliers negatively affected the facility's decision to import products. The use of a social label, such as Fair Trade, positively affected a handler's decision to import. The size of organic sales was important to both the decision to import and the share imported, with larger firms more likely to import and smaller firms less likely to import. However, once a smaller firm had decided to import, they imported a larger share. Finally, our analysis found that experiencing limited supplies or prioritizing price with suppliers did not influence a handler's decision to import products. Based on the findings, we suggest future research avenues, including studies that address consumer preferences and the impact of increased imports on domestic organic farms.

Sales of organic food have soared over the past decade. Although nearly all organic commodities pass through the hands of at least one intermediary on the way from the farmer to the consumer, there is a dearth of literature examining organic food marketing, especially for the middle section of the supply chain. This paper uses new survey data on organic intermediaries (organic handlers) to characterize firms that are certified to both handle and produce organic foods, or organic producer–handlers. Because of their direct link to the production level, the producer–handler has the potential to provide insight into value-added activities in the organic sector. A logistic regression is estimated in order to identify characteristics that make it more likely that a firm would be both a certified organic handler and a certified organic producer, while survey results are also used to describe some of the main challenges these producer–handlers face in handling their products. Organic producer–handlers ranked problems with ingredient procurement and supply and international trade issues as the highest barriers to growth. The model indicated that with few exceptions, many of the operational and procurement characteristics of organic producer–handlers are comparable to the entire organic handling population. However, those facilities dedicated solely to organic handling and those certified longer are more likely to be organic producer–handlers. Use of direct markets by organic handlers has the most robust relationship in the model, although marketing to natural products independent retailers and wholesalers are also important.