In June, I reached 2026 ReFED Food Waste Solutions Summit Conversations are expected to focus on food recovery, diversion strategies and emerging technologies. Those conversations happened. But I left thinking about something much bigger.
Across discussions on policy, technology, supply chains and community partnerships, a different pattern emerged: food waste was rarely seen as an isolated problem. Instead, it appeared as a signal of deeper system failures and missed connections.
The more I hear, the harder it becomes to think of food waste as just a waste problem.
Food waste is often framed as a problem of excess: too much food is produced, purchased or discarded. Solutions are similarly built around recovery, redistribution, composting or disposal. Those interventions are important. But they risk focusing on symptoms that don’t fully address the conditions that created them.
What became increasingly clear throughout the summit was that food waste sits at the intersection of multiple systems working simultaneously. It reflects how resources are transferred, how incentives are structured, how information is shared, and how people interact with the systems around them.
What is the scale of the economy?
One theme emerged repeatedly throughout the conversation, regardless of whether speakers were discussing technology, operations or partnerships: Mission alone does not take off.
Many organizations enter sustainability work with compelling missions and clear objectives. Yet good intentions rarely determine whether a solution succeeds. Operational realities still matter, cost matters, ease of implementation and existing workflows matter.
Several speakers emphasized understanding customer operations and reducing friction, rather than asking organizations or communities to completely redesign how they work. In practice, this means that successful solutions often fit naturally into existing systems without requiring entirely new ones.
That observation extends far beyond food waste.
Sustainable initiatives are often discussed because the environmental benefits themselves should be motivation enough. In practice, organizations often balance multiple pressures simultaneously: budget, staffing constraints, operational constraints, and competing priorities. Solutions that scale tend to solve multiple problems simultaneously. They reduce costs, improve efficiency, reduce risk, or create additional value alongside environmental outcomes.
This does not diminish the importance of the mission, instead I believe it simply recognizes that systems respond to stimuli, whether we intentionally design for them or not.
And if food waste is ultimately a system challenge, then understanding the incentives embedded within that system becomes as important as understanding the waste itself.
Invisible infrastructure problems
Another theme that comes up again and again is how often we focus on visible innovations while ignoring the systems that make those innovations possible. It reminded me of the idea of not being able to see the forest for the trees. We focus on the solution directly in front of us while missing the broader systems operating around it.
When people think of infrastructure, they often picture roads, buildings, machinery, or other physical assets. But infrastructure is not always visible. Sometimes infrastructure looks like data standards, shared information systems, measurement frameworks, or operational coordination across organizations and sectors.
This idea manifested itself in multiple sessions, particularly a session that dialed in on the importance of creating measurement subjects, where discussions moved beyond compliance reporting and into operational decision-making. Food loss and waste were discussed not only as environmental concerns but as issues directly linked to economy, efficiency and organizational performance. Better measurement was developed as a means of improving decisions rather than simply documenting them.
Speakers also acknowledged a familiar challenge: gathering useful data and creating interoperability across systems is difficult. Information often exists in separate systems, across different actors, and in inconsistent formats. Several conversations pointed to work happening in the carbon space on how shared standards and common practices can build stronger foundations, while acknowledging that considerable work remains around supply chain transparency.
A separate breakout session focused on the real climate costs of food waste highlighted another factor that matters in measurement. Food waste is often understood as food that we can physically see discarded. But its effects extend far beyond what ends up in a landfill or compost bin. Emissions related to fertilizers, refrigerants, transportation systems, embedded water use, and superpollutants such as methane and nitrous oxide exist within a much larger network of environmental and economic impacts.
Most of the system exists outside our immediate field of vision.
If we can collect the granular data needed to better understand how these systems work, we begin to unlock opportunities that might otherwise be hidden. Data can reveal inefficiencies, identify patterns, and strengthen decision-making. More importantly, it can help us ask better questions.
I see similar dynamics emerging in community resilience and power change work. Progress in these spaces often depends on measuring what we previously overlooked and paying attention to signals that initially seemed invisible. Data itself is not the goal. The goal is to develop a clear understanding of how systems actually work so that solutions can be designed with greater purpose.
Infrastructure, in other words, is something we don’t always build. Sometimes it’s something we learn to see.
Food waste reveals interconnected systems
Food waste is simultaneously an environmental, social and economic problem. The more I listened throughout the summit, the more difficult it became to separate one influence from another because pulling on a thread reveals an entire network beneath it.
During a breakout session, one statistic that stuck with me was this About 80% of all water used in the United States is used by agriculture. On the surface, it sounds simple. But when finally thinking about lost or wasted food, that number suddenly represents something much bigger: land use, irrigation systems, energy use, labor, transportation, and the resources needed to move food from farm to consumer.
Most of the ReFED Recent reports This reinforces the interrelationship. The agency estimates that the United States will produce about 70 million tons of surplus food in 2024, representing about 29% of the nation’s food supply. This surplus carries an estimated value of $380 billion and produces emissions equivalent to 51 million cars driven for a year.
These numbers reveal how deeply food waste is embedded in other systems. Food waste doesn’t just end up in a landfill. It is also about the cold chain of energy energy, the water used throughout agricultural production, the economic resources invested throughout the supply chain, and ultimately the people connected to each level of that process.
Which raises another question: If systems depend on people to function, where do people fit into the solution?
Resilience depends on people, not just technology
Technology alone cannot create resilient systems.
Throughout the summit, conversations around AI and innovation highlighted exciting possibilities for improving forecasting, operational efficiency and decision-making. I believe there are meaningful possibilities. At the same time, I found myself returning to a different thought: the answer probably lies somewhere between technological progress and human engagement.
If people are disconnected from the food system, even powerful technologies can only go so far. Several discussions emphasized the importance of sending positive messages and meeting people where they are rather than relying solely on fear-based narratives. Encouraging consumers to understand their own relationship with food waste can ultimately lead to more sustainable change than asking people to react to abstract statistics.
ReFED’s findings indicate that there may already be evidence of this. Changes in household behavior around shopping, meal planning and food management have contributed to recent reductions in food waste. Undoubtedly, strong systems still depend on people willing to participate in them.
That participation happens locally. This happens when communities organize around shared needs, when people teach each other, and when solutions become embedded in everyday life. I have always found inspiration in examples of communities coming together to solve problems, whether through urban food gardens, food cooperatives or local efforts to improve access and resilience.
Technology may help us move faster, or so its proponents argue, but people remain the connective tissue that determines whether systems ultimately endure.
Food waste can be a clear example of how sustainability challenges rarely fit neatly into categories. They exist between sectors, communities and institutions, revealing connections that are easy to miss until we start looking more closely.
If food waste is ultimately a systems challenge, then the solution needs to think less about what gets thrown away and more about the systems we build around it. Because when we strengthen systems, we don’t just reduce waste. We are creating the conditions for healthier communities, more resilient infrastructure and a more sustainable future.
–
Previously published Reprinted with resilience and permission
Join The Good Men Project as a Premium Member today.
All premium members Watch the Good Men Project without any ads.
–
Image: splash
