Food Affordability and Environmental Progress: How innovation kills two birds with one stone

Americans have some of the most affordable food in the world. Consumers across the United States spend far less on nutritional support as a proportion of total consumer expenditures compared to consumers in other countries, while also having access to a greater variety in food choices (1,2). Roughly 6.6 percent of the average American household budget is spent on food consumed at home compared to over 12 percent in some European countries, and over 18 percent in China, Mexico, and Turkey (2). Moreover, while consumption across the US from most food groups has steadily risen, spending on food has fallen from over 25 percent of the average American’s income in 1933 to less than 10 percent by 2010 (3,4). Despite rising consumption rates, this trend reflects a steady increase in disposable income, giving families more money to spend on healthcare, clothes, energy, and travel.  

However, challenges persist. For one thing, lower food costs do not necessarily mean food is affordable for everyone. A typical family of four may spend approximately $1,300 per month on groceries (5), a figure that represents a significant share of disposable income in 2024.  However, this family may – like many families across America – be increasingly confronted by financial stressors (some of which are food-related). One-in-four American parents say they’ve struggled to afford food or housing over the past year (6), a reflection of broader economic challenges, including sluggish wage growth,supply-chain disruptions, higher operating costs, and elevated levels of inflation. The most notable of these events is the Russia-Ukraine war, which has exacerbated other economy-wide inflationary pressures like high energy costs (7).

Beyond immediate concerns about food affordability faced by American consumers, there are also food-related environmental and climate concerns that invariably affect these consumers. Two of these concerns warrant attention. First, food production is a significant contributor to global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, which contribute to climate change. By some estimates, food production accounts for one-third of global anthropogenic GHGs produced annually, which equates to over 16 billion tons of carbon dioxide (8). Second, non-food-related environmental disruptions (e.g., droughts, wildfires, and storms) can affect the food system, diminishing food security and increasing food prices (9). Food security, the state of having access to enough food for a healthy life, may also be compromised as climate change increases the difficulty of food production, which causes food prices to rise further (10,11). GHGs attributed to food production can further exacerbate this process, creating – absent action – an unfavorable feedback loop between food security and climate. Collectively, this loop highlights an uncomfortable truth: Although Americans have some of the most affordable food in the world, this access incorporates hidden costs (1).

Can innovation help increase food access while reducing unwanted environmental byproducts? If so, to what extent? Novel methods of producing food are inextricably linked to population health. Technology and food have – throughout human history – continually intersected. The evolution of food processing techniques can be traced back through the ages, beginning with primitive tools and ancient methods devised to produce, preserve, and transport food. Development of the plough, characterized as a crucial enabler of the modern economy (12), can be traced back over 10 millennia when agricultural communities that settled in the Middle East and the Mediterranean began using digging sticks to aerate soil and kill weeds. By the eighth century, derivatives of the technology – most notably heavy ploughs that allow for aerating denser soil – afforded access to new grain sources. By the eleventh century, refinements in plough technology were accompanied by the development and proliferation of wind and water-powered mills, which made large-scale flour production possible.  By the 1900s, technological advances enabled the agricultural sector to significantly reduce its dependence on human labor without sacrificing production levels (13). The ensuing rising productivity has largely been credited with helping lower food prices.

This paper scrutinizes ways in which innovation can lower food prices and improve the environment. We consult public literature and data sources to enumerate tangible ways in which technology can increase food affordability while concurrently addressing environmental concerns linked to the production and disposal of food. 

Three distinct steps characterize our efforts. First, we utilize input cost components in the food dollar series, published by the US Department of Agriculture (USDA), to identify specific innovations that can reduce both input cost components and the values associated with the food dollar. Furthermore, we enumerate – where possible – the associated emissions footprint/emissions benefits associated with these innovations. Secondly,  we assess how innovation can address the actual cost of food, which is much higher than current estimates suggest (1). Third and finally, we scrutinize what policies can increase innovation in the food and agriculture industry. In doing so, we prioritize investment in innovation and technology adoption throughout the lifecycle of food production, use, and disposal.

Food Dollar Related Innovations

One means of measuring innovation’s impact on food affordability is by 1) scrutinizing for each dollar spent on food, the individual cost components associated with that dollar, and 2) identifying innovations that deliver cost reductions for each of those components (thereby improving affordability). The USDA’s Food Dollar Series labors to address the question of domestically produced food by asking, “Where does the money spent on food go?” The series examines annual purchases of US consumers on products that “ 1) are produced on a U.S. farm and undergo no off-farm process beyond storage, transport, and basic packaging, or (2) are processed at a domestic food-manufacturing establishment (14).” 

Although the series has changed over time, most notably in 2011, to address measurement problems, the discontinuation of several underlying data sources, and a more complete accounting of the global food system, its underlying premise remains the same: namely to comply with a 1946 congressional mandate that directs the Secretary of Agriculture to, “determine costs of marketing agricultural products in their various forms and through the various channels (14,15).”

Figure 1: Food Dollar Series (2006)

Figure 1 highlights the cost components of the original food dollar series. A sizable share (81¢ on every $1) is accounted for by marketing, which reflects the market value added to farm commodities. Farm share accounts for 19¢ of every $1, and reflects the amount of farm commodity sales. Marketing’s share is further divided into 12 subcategories: labor, packaging, transportation, energy, profits, advertising, depreciation, rent, interest, repairs, business taxes, and other costs. 

At the same time, the updated 2023 food dollar series offers more nuance by including industry groups and the sum of value added by each of them (shown below).

Figure 2: Food Dollar Industry Group (2023)

Our goal here is not to ascertain the accuracy of the food dollar series but rather to identify innovations that can facilitate cost reductions in each category. We do so below. In doing so, we focus on the original 12 subcategories from the Food Dollar Series. The innovation(s) listed are not intended to be comprehensive but rather reflective of how a sector-specific technological advancement can facilitate cost reductions and thereby lower costs for consumers.

Labor

Labor reflects the amount paid by an employer to cover employee wages and benefits, plus related payroll taxes and benefits. In the food sector, these costs can be significant and have an associated emissions impact. For example, labor and harvest-related labor costs account for nearly half of the average total production costs for lettuce and more than one-third of the production costs for fresh tomatoes, spinach, and peaches (16,17). These costs are poised to rise due to rising wage demands and limited labor supply. Many labor-related tasks, such as manual thinning of lettuce and traditional fertilizer and irrigation methods, are time-consuming and often imprecise, resulting in inefficiencies, higher costs, and increased environmental impact. Innovation, as discussed below, improves precision, ecological outcomes, and reduces costs in these critical areas.

Innovation Application

Lettuce thinning: Lettuce thinning is important as closely spaced crops risk overcrowding, which leads to stunted growth and a smaller, less productive harvest. Human labor can contribute to this process because, in addition to being costly and time-consuming, it is also imprecise. Manual thinning relies on visual estimation, which is characterized by less accuracy and can lead to uneven plant spacing. By contrast, auto thinning is more labor efficient with no adverse impact on yield or disease incidence (18). Automated lettuce thinning machines – like the Row Crop Thinner – relies on computer vision to more accurately identify and remove unwanted plants (19). This invariably offers a more efficient alternative to manual thinning, lowering costs. 

Fertilizer and irrigation application: Variable-rate technologies (VRT) are precision farming tools that automatically adjust the amount of inputs, such as fertilizer or irrigation water, applied across a field based on real-time soil and crop data. Traditional fertilizer and irrigation methods can be labor-intensive and prone to over-application. By using soil and moisture sensors, variable-rate systems allow farmers to deliver precise amounts of water and nutrients only where they are needed. This precision reduces labor and input costs while minimizing nutrient runoff and emissions associated with fertilizer production and use, improving both economic and environmental performance (20).

Packaging

The materials and methods used to enclose food products play an essential role in ensuring the safety and quality of food products, particularly for fresh foods. Without it, food processing risks contamination from contact with biological, chemical, and physical contaminants, and ultimately reduces the shelf life of the item. Proper packaging also helps prevent edible foods from being lost (which contributes to food waste). However, packaging costs can be substantial, accounting for by some estimates, up to 10 percent of the final procurement price borne ultimately by consumers (21). This figure can be higher, depending on the type of packaging (e.g., bamboo-based packaging and organic cotton bags). Moreover, packaging costs are highly susceptible to supply chain shocks. At the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, food packaging costs rose by 24 percent in some countries (22). Packaging types can also result in adverse health effects and increase emissions; therefore, innovations in packaging have the potential to reduce those externalities drastically.

Innovation Application

Compostable packaging: The ubiquitousness of plastic in food packaging reflects its high durability and low cost. However, the use of plastic introduces health risks, such as chemical leaching (where food absorbs the chemicals in plastic) and microplastic ingestion (which entails the inadvertent consumption of tiny plastic chemicals). While the direct health risks of microplastics ingestion is still being studied, there is a growing consumer awareness of the issue. As an alternative, compostable brown and white-paper boxes offer a more sustainable solution. They require less energy to produce than traditional plastics and reduce dependence on petroleum-based materials (23). From an environmental perspective, compostable packaging products are designed to decompose naturally, the ultimate product of this decomposition being biomass, carbon dioxide, inorganic compounds, and water. Many of these end products facilitate participation in the circular economy as they act as fertilizers, which enrich soil health and promote robust plant growth. 

Automated food packaging systems: While the food packaging industry has historically relied on human labor, this reliance is becoming increasingly tenuous. Labor shortages persist due to low pay, physically demanding work, highly variable schedules, and a skills gap, which risks disruption to food preparation and delivery. Moreover, reliance on human labor also introduces (or exacerbates) the risk of food contamination, and contamination of food by workers has been identified as a significant contributing factor to foodborne illness (24). Automated food packaging systems can address these concerns by reducing the need for human intervention. These systems – which use sensors and software to wrap, seal, and label food – can also reduce the number of ‘touchpoints’ for human workers, concurrently reducing labor demand and food contamination risk (25). 

Transportation

The physical movement of food from where it is grown to where it is consumed reflects geographical and temporal heterogeneity in consumer preferences. Consumers in one location may not always want to ‘eat local,’ and when they do, the products on offer may not be consistent with their immediate preferences. Consequently, food is transported across regions to ensure consumers have access to a consistent and varied food supply, making transportation a key link in food supply chains (26). However, this process imposes both economic costs and environmental externalities. Subject to the distances involved, food transportation constitutes at least six percent of the final retail price, a figure that often rises with fuel price volatility and logistics constraints, which are ultimately passed on to consumers. Global food-miles account for nearly 20 percent of total food-systems emissions, roughly three billion tons of carbon dioxide. In the United States, food transport – from input to delivery – accounts for approximately 11 percent of national food-system emissions (27).

Innovation Application

Delivery Route Optimization: Meeting rising demand for perishable food necessitates increasing dependence on refrigeration. Consequently, the requirements for cold chain distribution services for perishable fresh products have risen, leading to rising transportation costs that conflict with the low-margin nature of the logistics industry. The precise costs borne are susceptible to traffic conditions, with complex road conditions leading to increased delay that contributes to higher costs. Artificial Intelligence (AI) – that relies upon predictive analytics and optimized routing – can temper these contributions. Studies show that AI can reduce transportation costs by two to seven percent, highlighting the potential of these algorithms to address the multi-vehicle, multi-point delivery challenges faced by fresh food distributors (28). In addition to reducing transportation costs, AI algorithms can ensure fresh food is distributed within the distribution window, minimizing spoilage and reducing food waste (29).

Controlled Environment Agriculture (CEA): Long traversing requirements from farm to fork risk decreasing margins and increasing costs for consumers. CEA addresses these issues by enabling crop production closer to consumption points, thereby lowering both transportation emissions and costs (30). Using repurposed or custom-built containers, CEA systems grow crops indoors in highly controlled environments, decoupling food production from geographic and seasonal limitations.  This not only ensures consistent year-round yields but also shields crops from environmental shocks, such as storms and excessive heat, reducing losses and better preserving the food supply chain system integrity. (31). b By shortening supply chains, CEA contributes to a more localized, resilient, and cost-effective food system, one where food is grown closer to where it is consumed, reducing dependence on long-haul transport and thereby reducing associated emissions.

Energy

In addition to supporting jobs and generating revenue, the food industry is a significant consumer of energy. Although the energy requirements of the food industry vary from country to country, the aggregate impact is substantial. The food sector accounts for at least 15 percent of fossil fuels used annually and roughly 30 percent of the global energy consumption (32,33). Given the need to reduce operational costs, improve system resilience, and minimize energy inefficiencies, energy optimization has become an increasingly important focus within the food industry  (32). The energy consumption and emissions footprint of food systems reflect two separate but related factors: industrial food production is highly energy-intensive, and this intensiveness necessitates dependence on energy sources that have high energy density: specifically, fossil fuels. While fossil fuels have long provided reliable and scalable energy to the sector, long-term reliance introduces exposure to price volatility, vulnerability to geopolitical disruptions, and elevated greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions—all of which can impact food affordability and supply chain stability,  as evidenced in recent geopolitical events that have negatively affected food prices.

Innovation Application 

Variable Speed Drives (VSD): Refrigeration and cold storage play an important role in maintaining food safety. As food is transported from farm to fork, it can be exposed to bacteria that thrive in environments with moisture, nutrients, and specific temperatures. Temperatures between 4 degrees Celsius and 60 degrees Celsius are considered particularly dangerous as the number of bacteria can, between these temperatures, double in less than 20 minutes (34). Consequently, ensuring food temperatures do not fall within this range is crucial to ensuring food safety. VSDs can provide this assurance by more expeditiously providing the necessary cooling or heating to maintain a uniform temperature (compared to systems not equipped with VSDs). It achieves this by more precisely controlling the refrigerator’s compressor and fan speed, which optimizes energy efficiency and temperature control. By some estimates, this can reduce energy consumption by up to 30 percent without compromising the integrity of the food product. Public estimates suggest cost savings owing to VSD adoption can, subject to the application, range between 30 and 40 percent (35,36). 

Automation monitoring: Studies suggest that approximately half of all energy consumption in the food & beverage (F&B) industry is used to convert raw materials into products (37). The remainder is used to ensure product preservation and safety, including freezing, drying, refrigeration, and packaging. Endemic to these processes – and the food sector more broadly – is energy loss. By some estimates, roughly 38 percent of the energy associated with food production is invariably lost (38). Partially explaining these losses are miscalibration between (and/or poor selection of) everything from compressors to fans to heaters to motors. The cost impact can be significant. For example, compressed air is a F&B plant’s most inefficient and most expensive energy cost component, levying, by one estimate, a one percent increase in compressed air electrical costs for a two psi increase in compressed air (37). Algorithms can help by continually assessing whether such machinery is functioning within normal and, more importantly, optimal parameters. Another technology that offers relief is acoustic imaging cameras, which use microphones to detect compressed air leaks. By accurately visualizing and isolating sound associated with the leak, these cameras can reduce energy losses and improve cost (39). Reducing waste and loss across these industrial processes not only cuts unnecessary spending but also decreases the overall emissions footprint of food production operations.

Repair

Repair costs reflect the expenses incurred to a) ensure equipment health, and b) restore equipment so that it performs at maximum efficiency. These costs are significant in the food industry, given widespread (and increasing) reliance on technology to maximize efficiency and reduce costs. Key to doing so is extending the lifespan of equipment by proactively assessing equipment health and enacting maintenance and repair strategies that minimize equipment downtime. Equipment downtime – often caused by inoperative or unresponsive equipment – can impose significant costs on food production. At a typical food processing plant, equipment may run for between 16 and 20 hours per day, a productivity rate that helps keep per-unit food production costs low. However, by one estimate, unplanned downtime – owing to inadequate or unforeseen maintenance – can cost a food processing facility thousands of dollars per hour (40). These costs risk increasing the per-unit production cost and, consequently, food expenses for consumers. 

Innovation Application 

Automated Diagnosis: The inspection, diagnosis, and repair of agricultural machinery is crucial to ensuring proper irrigation, harvesting, planting, and spraying. However, agricultural inspection can be impaired by inefficiency and/or poor maintenance, resulting in equipment downtime and increased costs. Automated diagnostic tools offer a cost-effective means of addressing these challenges. Systems like ‘Jaltest’ – an agricultural diagnostic tool – allow for rapid calibration of actuators and sensors, and for quick and accurate configuration of machine parameters (41). Unlike some software tools that outright eliminate the need for human labor, specifically mechanics, tools like Jaltest augment human performance in the diagnostic process, most notably by giving mechanics access to detailed technical information, diagrams, images, and graphics, all of which are customized based on the exact machinery model the mechanic is assessing/repairing. Facilitating the tool’s efficacy is its ability to remotely access large amounts of data, including specific regulatory compliance requirements, customer support contact information, and cost estimates associated with each repair/maintenance activity. 

Beyond cost savings, these tools also yield environmental benefits by reducing the frequency and severity of repairs, which extends equipment lifespan and improves operational efficiency. This in turn lowers energy waste, limits emissions from malfunctioning systems, and reduces the resource demands of manufacturing and disposal.

High(er) Grade Steel: While lowering the frequency of repairs in food production machinery often involves preventive maintenance programs and optimizing equipment, another pathway to controlling repair costs involves using high(er) grade materials during equipment construction. For example, stainless steel is commonly used in the assembly of food processing appliances (e.g., meat tumblers, mixers, and slicers), with 430 stainless steel being particularly prominent. It is favored as it can be bent or stretched with little difficulty and has corrosion-resistant properties, a particularly valuable trait in food assembly areas where grease, food particles, and salts – known to contribute to corrosion – are commonplace. However, its corrosion resistance is lower than that of 304 stainless steel, which is also able to withstand prolonged exposure to harsh environments and demonstrates easy cleaning properties. Leveraging this steel type in food processing equipment and kitchen appliances allows for reducing repair costs, particularly owing to corrosion (42). While 304 stainless steel is generally more expensive than 430 stainless steel, cost savings can be realized in the long run due to reduced wear-and-tear of equipment. 

Enumerating the cost and environmental impact of innovation

While the Food Dollar Series scrutinizes “where the money spent on food goes,” it reflects only one means of scrutinizing food affordability. Another approach entails considering components of the food production process and the costs associated with these processes. While there is overlap between the Food Dollar Series and the food production process (e.g., both consider labor as a cost input to food production), there are also differences. The most notable is that considering costs associated with the food production process allows for more granularity when identifying which stage of food processing may be exceptionally costly. Consequently, in this section, we enumerate the cost and environmental impact of innovation through the lens of the entire lifecycle of food production and processing. When doing so, we identify specific innovations associated with many (but not all) stages of food production and processing, and subsequently enumerate the dollar savings and environmental benefits these innovations can deliver. We begin by providing a cursory overview of the food production and processing system. 

A multi-tiered food production and processing system helps transform raw ingredients into meals and snacks that are more palatable to consumers. The initial stage of food production emphasizes the role of the agricultural and fishing industry. During this stage, crops are grown, livestock reared, and fish farmed or caught. Each of these food sources is subsequently harvested, slaughtered, and netted or trawled, respectively, to prepare them for further processing. Food processing occurs at three levels: primary, secondary, and tertiary, each of which plays a role in preserving the appearance, enhancing the taste, and extending the shelf life of food products. 

At the primary stage, raw ingredients (or products) are, depending on their type, prepared for immediate consumption or further processing. This can involve everything from de-husking and de-shelling (for almonds and sunflower seeds) to milling (for converting grain to flour), to butchering (when prepping cuts of meat). At the secondary stage, materials are combined with other ingredients, cooked, and flavors are added. This can involve everything from blanching and roasting (using almonds produced following de-husking), to baking bread and pastries (using flour produced during milling), to shaping and seasoning meats (derived during butchering). The third and final stage of food processing emphasizes convenience. The final level of food processing is all about convenience. Tertiary processing encompasses the packaging, branding, and labeling of food products that make them suitable for sale at retail stores. After this processing level, food is distributed to retail stores and made available for purchase by consumers.

In enumerating the dollar savings and environmental benefits innovations can deliver across the processing and production stages above, we make two assumptions. First, we acknowledge that lower costs associated with food production may not necessarily translate into greater affordability for consumers. That is, a farm may prioritize realizing the totality of those savings rather than passing them on to consumers. Such a prospect is likely in the absence of competitors. However, we note that to the extent some (or all those savings) are passed on to consumers, doing so helps expand market share, thereby increasing overall revenue. Second, we note that the environmental emissions benefits of innovation are highly susceptible to usage patterns. Suboptimal use risks tempering or eliminating these benefits. 

Our goal in the following section is to solely enumerate cost savings and environmental benefits as indicative of gains that can be realized by leveraging innovation in the food production industry. For example, the cultivation of crops (e.g., soybeans, potatoes, and sugarcane) plays a vital role in feeding the world’s population. Some crops (e.g., wheat, maize, barley, to name a few) have a disproportionate influence on consumption trends as they often serve as staples in global diets. This makes them essential to maintaining global food security. Crucial to ensuring this security is the provision of crop protection, which includes insecticides, herbicides, and fungicides, among others. Studies suggest that current crop protection products can provide roughly 40 percent in savings on grocery bills for an American family of four (43). This estimate reflects 35 percent savings on fresh fruit and 45.5 percent on fresh vegetables. Cost savings are coupled with environmental benefits and impacts, the most notable being tilling. This practice, which entails aerating soil to allow for moisture permeation, can result in environmental externalities. By reducing the need for tillage, modern crop protection helps mitigate these externalities—cutting fuel use by approximately 560 million gallons annually and keeping carbon stored in soil, averting emissions.

To enumerate the cost savings and environmental benefits associated with innovation, we scrutinize existing literature for studies evidencing related savings and benefits. Below, we emphasize three parameters that guide this scrutiny.

• First, our approach emphasizes quantitative metrics that allow for estimation of cost savings and/or environmental benefits. For example, if a study demonstrates that a technology is ‘better’ than the status quo but provides no quantitative measure of how much better, that study is excluded from our analysis. This approach enables us to focus on a more precise enumeration of benefits rather than a qualitative discussion.
• Second, our review of existing literature categorizes three tiers of benefits associated with innovation: 1) cost savings realized by the farm, 2) cost savings realized by the consumer, and 3) environmental benefits associated with product use. Cost savings estimates are, in the main document, presented as annual figures, the precise breakdown of savings being available in the supplementary information section. 
• Third, environmental benefits are quantified in kilograms of CO₂ avoided annually, and the ‘savings’ associated with this avoidance. This figure is estimated by considering the annualized monetized future global benefits related to reducing greenhouse gases (i.e., the Social Cost of Carbon (SCC) and multiplying that figure by the avoided metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent emission. Given the debate over the value of SCC, these estimates can vary widely. However, it is critical to underscore that the emissions benefits are co-benefits or byproducts of investments in innovation and efficiency. The environmental benefits of innovation come at little to no cost to the taxpayer or the consumer.  

We note that existing literature may not necessarily enumerate all three parameters subject to the research goals of the study. For example, if the focus of the study is savings realized by the farm, potential savings for consumers, coupled with environmental benefits, may be overlooked. Our goal is not to address this shortcoming; instead, we leverage estimates available in existing studies to assemble as comprehensive a picture as possible regarding the relationship between agricultural innovation and cost savings / environmental benefits. Consequently, our estimates – specifically those associated with cost savings – likely underestimate the true magnitude of savings to both farms and consumers due to agricultural innovation. Environmental benefits are likely also underestimated, as enumeration of these benefits has historically been deemphasized relative to cost savings realized by farms and consumers. 

Results and Key Findings

Our review highlights 17 studies that enumerate cost savings and environmental benefits of innovation in the agricultural sector (Table 1). Of these 17, 12 (70 percent) enumerate farm-related cost savings, 4 (23.5 percent) enumerate consumer-related cost savings, and 8 (47 percent) enumerate environmental benefits. While 5 (29 percent) enumerate more than one benefit category, none enumerate all three categories (i.e., cost savings to farms, cost savings to consumers, and environmental benefits). 

Key Findings

• Subject to the type of innovation leveraged, savings for farms could be sizable. For example, the use of creel fishing techniques, as opposed to crawl techniques, to bait and catch lobster could yield $153,364.48 in savings for fishing firms. Automated Milking Systems – which allow for cows to be milked on their own schedule – allow for roughly $31,763.83 in savings for the average farm.
• At the farm level, we document technology-related savings ranging from as little as $352.50 to $153,364.48.  Much of these savings come from Precision Agriculture Technologies, which leverages numerous technologies (e.g., GPS guidance, virtual mapping, etc), to monitor and treat the soil and crops.
• The extent of these savings (or a portion of them) is passed on to consumers, and the financial benefits for these consumers could be sizable. The average household spends roughly 22 percent of its income on food and nutrition (Fig. 1). Food-related cost savings offer an opportunity to address other sizable cost burdens like transportation, housing, and healthcare.
• At the consumer level, specific enumerated savings could also be sizable. For example, crop protection technologies could deliver up to $3,665.78 in savings per consumer on an annualized basis. As previously noted, such savings would afford opportunity to these individuals to redirect excess income towards other cost burdens.
• The amount of annualized savings realized per consumer varies considerably based on the type of technology leveraged.  For example, GMO crops can deliver between $0.60 and $ 19.64 in savings compared to crop protection, which can provide between $2,738.29 and $3,665.78 in savings.
• These savings have the potential to help address food affordability and insecurity challenges long faced by consumers. Concurrently, these technologies can also help address food waste – thereby lowering food cost – supporting the longer preservation of food.
• Subject to the type of innovation leveraged, the environmental benefits realized could be sizable.  For example, on a per-company basis, using creel (versus trawl) fishing techniques can reduce carbon emissions by up to 4,117,361.18 kilograms annually. Similarly, on a per-farm basis, the use of hermetic bags in corn storage can reduce up to 21,308.51 kilograms of carbon emissions annually.
• The associated savings resulting from reduced carbon emissions can also be substantial. Using a $61.52 value for the social cost of carbon, as much as $66,938.08 in carbon-related ‘costs’ can be averted. Generally, carbon-related ‘costs’ averted range from as little as $32.92 to as much as $66,938.08.

Policy and Administrative Recommendations 

To strengthen U.S. agriculture’s innovation capacity, reduce input cost for farmers, and improve food affordability for consumers, USDA and Congress should:

Policy Recommendations

• Congress Should Encourage USDA Research and Development Collaboration with Other Federal Agencies. Strong interagency partnerships would accelerate agricultural innovation by leveraging the unique strengths of each agency and pursuing research in dual-agency priority areas, thereby reducing duplicative R&D. By leveraging agency collaboration, these partnerships can produce practical technologies that help farmers and ranchers lower costs, improve efficiency within their operations, and strengthen resilience against market disruptions, natural disasters, and other internal and external pressures. Greater federal collaboration would also give the private sector better access to advanced tools, fostering innovation and competitiveness.
  • Proposed DOE-USDA Interagency Research Act: Leveraging DOE’s capabilities in biofuels, grid modernization, and advanced computing with USDA’s research strengths in crop science, and rural technology development can accelerate practical innovations which could improve farm operations, reduce emissions, boost energy efficiency, and lower costs for both producers and consumers.
    
  • Proposed NSF-USDA Interagency Research Act: The proposed bill would advance work in plant biology, precision agriculture, automation, and workforce development. This collaboration would strengthen research infrastructure, speed the development of new agricultural tools and crop development that could make growing more efficient and expand education and training programs for U.S. farmers and ranchers.
    
  • Introducing a DOD (DOW)-USDA Interagency Research Act: This proposal would formalize joint R&D between the two departments to advance technologies that serve both agricultural and defense needs, including resilient crops, resource management, logistics, and disaster preparedness. By applying defense expertise in data analytics, sensors, and logistics to agricultural challenges, such collaboration could improve resource management, lower crop losses, and strengthen both supply chains and land resilience.
    
• Congress Should Ensure Conservation Practice Standards are Updated Regularly : The Streamlining Conservation Practice Standards Act would update Section 1242 of the farm bill to require USDA to review Conservation Practice Standards (CPS) at least every five years. It would also create a transparent process for public and state input and establish clear pathways for adopting interim and permanent practices.
  • USDA’s NRCS programs, including EQIP and CSP, depend on CPS to determine which practices qualify for support. However, updates have not kept pace with new technologies. Farmers can only use new methods once approved nationally or as interim practices at the state level, creating inconsistencies and delays. Regular reviews would close these gaps, speed the adoption of innovative tools, and help farmers improve efficiency, resilience, and environmental outcomes.

• Congress Should Establish an External Review Board and Advisory Panel for Conservation Innovation Grants. The USDA’s Conservation Innovation Grants (CIG) program within the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) is designed to stimulate the development and adoption of new conservation approaches, technologies, and systems on private lands. Administered by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), the program provides competitive grants to public and private entities for projects that can improve soil health, water quality, wildlife habitat, and resilience while maintaining agricultural productivity. By design, the program is meant to fund the development and piloting of agricultural tools, technologies, and practices to further conservation practices on private lands. However, the program may not always surface the most forward-looking ideas. To strengthen CIG’s ability to identify and support transformative innovation, USDA should incorporate external review boards or advisory panels into the grant evaluation process.
  • Other USDA programs already use this model effectively. The National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA) convenes peer review panels of external scientists, researchers, and educators to evaluate research grants. Similarly, the Foundation for Food and Agriculture (FFAR) recruits non-federal subject matter experts as peer reviewers for its grants. These examples demonstrate that external review can be implemented successfully within USDA’s broader grant portfolio, including CIGs.
    
  • Applying a hybrid model to CIGs, pairing NRCS staff with external experts drawn from academia, producers, industry, and conservation groups, would broaden the technical expertise in the grant awarding process and enhance credibility among stakeholders. An external review board could be tasked specifically with assessing the “innovation” and “scalability” dimensions of proposals, while NRCS staff maintain oversight of compliance, policy alignment, and practical feasibility, increasing the likelihood that CIG drives meaningful agricultural innovation.
    
• Congress Should Establish Grants for Pilot and Pre-Commercial Biorefinery Development. Entrepreneurs developing new biobased products face limited access to pilot and demonstration-scale biorefineries, creating a major barrier to commercialization. Congress should add cost-share grants for bench, pilot, and semi-commercial scale projects to USDA’s Biorefinery, Renewable Chemical, and Biobased Product Manufacturing Assistance Program (Section 9003 of the Farm Bill). Reviving this authority for non-fuel industrial bioproducts would fill a critical infrastructure gap, de-risk private investment, and speed the development of American-made bioproducts. Expanding biorefinery capacity would also help lower the cost and environmental footprint of food packaging by accelerating the production of biobased materials that can supplement or replace petroleum-based plastics.
  
• Congress Should Support Mechanization and Automation in Specialty Crops. Manual labor remains essential for most fruits and vegetables, including 17 of the 20 most widely consumed specialty crops, raising costs and limiting supply as the farm workforce declines. Congress should direct USDA to use existing programs and authorities to help growers adopt mechanized and automated technologies that reduce labor costs, improve efficiency, and keep food prices affordable.
  
• Congress Should Expand Eligibility for Precision Agriculture in USDA Programs. The PRECISE Act, would expand access to precision agriculture tools and technologies by authorizing the USDA to finance precision agriculture equipment through existing rural development and conservation programs. It would offer up to 90 percent cost-share for producers adopting precision practices. These technologies, such as GPS guidance, soil mapping, and variable-rate application, enable farmers to reduce input use, lower costs, and improve soil and water quality. 
  
• Congress Should Strengthen AgARDA and FFAR.  Strengthening programs like the Agriculture Advanced Research and Development Authority (AgARDA) and the Foundation for Food & Agriculture Research (FFAR) helps drive innovative research in technology, science, and machinery forward. AgARDA’s purpose is to fund breakthrough technologies to address urgent agricultural challenges which the private sector may not be suited to address, while FFAR leverages public–private partnerships to accelerate research with broad industry and environmental benefits.
  • AgARDA should be fully funded at its Congressionally appropriated amount, appointed with a head of agency, and staffed to fulfill its mission of advancing breakthrough agricultural technologies. It needs consistent annual appropriations, clear leadership, and the ability to fund high-risk projects that address challenges such as drought, soil degradation, and input efficiency that traditional research programs are too risk-averse to pursue.
    
  • Congress should continue to support FFAR, as it is a highly effective research program. Each dollar the federal government has invested has been matched by $1.40 from the private sector, more than doubling its reach. 

Administrative Recommendations

• The USDA Should Spur Innovation through Competitive Grant Programs. The Biden administration’s Fertilizer Production Expansion Program (FPEP) was launched in 2022 to increase domestic fertilizer manufacturing and reduce dependence on foreign imports. While the goal was primarily to address high input costs and supply chain disruptions, the program missed an opportunity to drive innovation in fertilizer efficiency, greenhouse gas reduction, and water quality improvement. The structure was designed to expand capacity, not to incentivize environmental or technological breakthroughs that could make production more efficient in the long term.
  
  • The administration could build off this idea by dedicating a portion of USDA funding to competitive grant challenges that reward private companies, universities, and cooperatives for measurable improvements in agricultural technologies that drive environmental and economic progress. This approach mirrors outcome-based procurement models used by DARPA and ARPA-E, which define a goal and let participants determine the best way to achieve it.
    
  • Competitions could focus on reducing emissions in fertilizer production, improving nutrient efficiency, or lowering the energy intensity of irrigation systems. Doing so would encourage private investment and faster commercialization of new technologies. 
    
• The USDA Should Fully Implement the SUSTAINS Act. The SUSTAINS Act should be a top priority for implementation, allowing private companies to invest directly in USDA conservation programs like EQIP and CSP. This innovative approach leverages private dollars to reduce program backlogs, fund more on-the-ground projects, and scale proven conservation practices. By mobilizing private capital alongside federal programs, SUSTAINS Act can strengthen rural economies and accelerate measurable environmental improvements.
  
• The USDA Should Reinstate the Agriculture Innovation Agenda of 2020. USDA should reinstate the Agriculture Innovation Agenda (44), which coordinated research, conservation practices, and data around innovation, and modernize it to include food affordability as a benchmark. The AIA’s three pillars– developing a national innovation strategy to align private and public research, integrating and accelerating the adoption of new conservation technologies into USDA programs, and improving data collection– were tied to measurable goals for productivity, water quality, greenhouse gas reduction, renewable energy, and food loss and waste. Reviving this framework, and including food affordability as a measurable benchmark (45) would help farmers produce more efficiently, enhance environmental outcomes, and improve food affordability.
  
• The USDA Should Establish Food Affordability as a Core Research Priority. The USDA should designate food affordability as a high-priority research area, weaving it in the strategic goals of the Agricultural Research Service (ARS), the National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA), and other USDA research programs. Doing so would ensure that federally funded agricultural research and technology advancements consistently address the cost drivers of food production, from input efficiency and supply-chain logistics to technology adoption, and support innovation that not only is beneficial for farmers and the environment, but that keeps food affordable for consumers.

Policy Index

Bill Title	Primary Sponsor
DOE and USDA Interagency Research Act	Rep. Frank Lucas (R-OK)
NSF and USDA Interagency Research Act	Rep. Jim Baird (R-IN)
DOW and USDA Interagency Research Act
PRECISE Act	Sen. Deb Fischer (R-NE)
Streamlining Conservation Practice Standards Act	Sen. Joni Ernst (R-IA), Rep. Abigail Spanberger (D-VA-7)
ACE Agriculture Act (118th Congress)	Senators Michael Bennet (D-CO) and Roger Marshall (R-KS) and Reps. Jimmy Panetta (D-CA-19) and Randy Feenstra (R-IA-4)

Financial and Climate Benefits from Agricultural Innovation

Genetically Modified Corn
Corn varieties developed using biotechnology that reduce crop loss and production costs relative to non-GM corn. Goodwin et al. (2015) estimate that removing GM corn from the U.S. food supply would increase the cost of a typical consumer’s annual grocery basket by $24.41.	HOUSEHOLD SAVINGS $24.41 / YEAR ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT —
Goodwin, Barry K., et al. “The Cost of a GMO-Free Market Basket of Food in the United States.” AgBioForum (2015).

Genetically Modified Soy
Biotech-developed soybean varieties that reduce yield loss and production costs compared to non-GM soy. Goodwin et al. (2015) estimate that eliminating GM soy from the U.S. food supply would increase a typical consumer’s annual grocery costs by $0.60 to $19.64.	HOUSEHOLD SAVINGS $0.60–$19.64 / YEAR ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT —
Goodwin, Barry K., et al. “The Cost of a GMO-Free Market Basket of Food in the United States.” AgBioForum (2015).

Genetically Modified Crops
Genetically modified crops that improve pest resistance and reduce yield losses compared with conventional crops. A global meta-analysis finds that GM crop adoption produces average farm-level income gains of $11,537.80 per year.	FARM SAVINGS $11,537.80 / YEAR ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT 2,025.16–3,037.74 kg CO₂ / YEAR $32.92–$49.39 VALUE / YEAR
Klümper, Wilhelm, and Matin Qaim. “A Meta-Analysis of the Impacts of Genetically Modified Crops.” PLOS ONE (2014).

Yield Mapping
Yield mapping systems that collect georeferenced harvest data to improve input decisions, manage variability, and reduce unnecessary costs. USDA analysis estimates that yield mapping technology saves farmers $3,183.13 per year.	FARM SAVINGS $3,183.13 / YEAR ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT —
Schimmelpfennig, David. “Cost Savings from Precision Agriculture Technologies on U.S. Corn Farms.” USDA Economic Research Service (2016).

Soil Mapping + GPS
Soil mapping combined with GPS-guided equipment improves field-level management and input efficiency. USDA analysis estimates cost savings of $1,712.52 per farm per year from this technology.	FARM SAVINGS $1,712.52 / YEAR ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT —
Schimmelpfennig, David. “Cost Savings from Precision Agriculture Technologies on U.S. Corn Farms.” USDA Economic Research Service (2016).

Soil Mapping + Variable-Rate Technology
Combining soil mapping with variable-rate technology allows more precise fertilizer application, lowering input costs while maintaining yields. USDA analysis estimates annual farm-level savings of $2,546.50.	FARM SAVINGS $2,546.50 / YEAR ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT —
Schimmelpfennig, David. “Cost Savings from Precision Agriculture Technologies on U.S. Corn Farms.” USDA Economic Research Service (2016).

Guidance Systems
GPS-based guidance systems reduce overlap in field passes, lower fuel use, and improve input efficiency. USDA analysis estimates that guidance systems provide farmers with annual savings of $1,909.88.	FARM SAVINGS $1,909.88 / YEAR ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT —
Schimmelpfennig, David. “Cost Savings from Precision Agriculture Technologies on U.S. Corn Farms.” USDA Economic Research Service (2016).

Precision Agriculture (Overall Benefits)
Precision agriculture technologies help farmers reduce fuel use, optimize fertilizer application, and apply pesticides more efficiently. National analysis estimates economic savings of $5,452.13 per farm per year, along with reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.	FARM SAVINGS $5,452.13 / YEAR ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT 472.87 kg CO₂ / YEAR $7.69 VALUE / YEAR
Association of Equipment Manufacturers. “The Environmental Benefits of Precision Agriculture in the United States.” (2016).

Automated Feeding Systems (Higher Estimate)
More comprehensive adoption of automated feeding technologies can further reduce labor costs and optimize feed delivery in livestock operations. Review findings estimate annual farm-level savings ranging from $7,755.00 to $9,400.00 per year from automated feeding systems.	FARM SAVINGS $7,755–$9,400 / YEAR ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT —
Papadopoulos, George, et al. “Economic and Environmental Benefits of Digital Agricultural Technological Solutions in Livestock Farming.” Smart Agricultural Technology (2025).

Automated Feeding Systems (Higher Estimate)
More comprehensive adoption of automated feeding technologies can further reduce labor costs and optimize feed delivery in livestock operations. Review findings estimate annual farm-level savings ranging from $7,755.00 to $9,400.00 per year from automated feeding systems.	FARM SAVINGS $7,755–$9,400 / YEAR ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT —
Papadopoulos, George, et al. “Economic and Environmental Benefits of Digital Agricultural Technological Solutions in Livestock Farming.” Smart Agricultural Technology (2025).

Automated Milking Systems
Automated milking systems reduce labor costs and improve operational efficiency in dairy production compared to conventional milking parlors. Analysis estimates farm-level cost savings of $31,763.83 per year, along with reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.	FARM SAVINGS $31,763.83 / YEAR ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT 3,622.29 kg CO2 / YEAR $58.89 VALUE / YEAR
USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service (as cited in the Food Affordability paper).

Crop Protection Products
Modern crop protection products help prevent yield losses and stabilize food production by controlling pests, weeds, and disease. Analysis estimates that eliminating these products would increase annual consumer food costs by $2,738.29 to $3,665.78 and result in higher greenhouse gas emissions.	HOUSEHOLD SAVINGS $2,738.29–$3,665.78 / YEAR ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT 2,638.63 kg CO2 / YEAR $42.90 VALUE / YEAR
CropLife America. The Contribution of Crop Protection to the United States Economy (2025).

Virtual Fencing
Virtual fencing systems use GPS-enabled collars to manage livestock movement without physical fencing infrastructure. Economic analysis estimates annual farm-level savings of $4,431.00 per year compared to traditional fencing systems.	FARM SAVINGS $4,431.00 / YEAR ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT —
Hoag, Dana L., et al. “The Economic Fundamentals of Virtual Fencing Compared to Traditional Fencing.” Rangelands (2025).

Rotatinuous (Rotational) Stocking
Rotatinuous stocking combines elements of rotational and continuous grazing to improve pasture utilization and reduce methane emissions from livestock. Research estimates annual emissions reductions of 8,430.58 kg of CO2-equivalent per farm, with an associated economic value of $137.06.	FARM SAVINGS — ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT 8,430.58 kg CO2 / YEAR $137.06 VALUE / YEAR
Savian, Jean Víctor, et al. “Rotatinuous Stocking: A Grazing Management Innovation That Has High Potential to Mitigate Methane Emissions by Sheep.” Journal of Cleaner Production (2018).

Creel Fishing
Creel fishing replaces fuel-intensive trawling with baited traps, reducing operating costs and emissions in commercial fisheries. Comparative analysis estimates annual company-level savings of $153,364.48, along with substantial reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.	COMPANY SAVINGS $153,364.48 / YEAR ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT 4,117,361.18 kg CO2 / YEAR $66,938.08 VALUE / YEAR
Leocádio, Ana Maria, et al. “Comparing Trawl and Creel Fishing for Norway Lobster.” PLOS ONE (2012).

Hermetic Storage Bags
Hermetic storage bags reduce post-harvest losses by preventing pest damage and spoilage during grain storage. Economic analysis estimates farm-level savings of $13,588.32 per year, along with significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.	FARM SAVINGS $13,588.32 / YEAR ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT 201,308.51 kg CO2 / YEAR $3,272.78 VALUE / YEAR
Leocádio, Ana Maria, et al. “Comparing Trawl and Creel Fishing for Norway Lobster.” PLOS ONE (2012).