For years, supermarkets in developed countries have only served ‘the best’ to their customers, such as the perfect round tomato, straight carrot, curved aubergine. But is this the real world? It is not! In reality, some tomatoes have noses, some carrots have a Siamese twin and some aubergines are just… well… different. They are called ‘ugly produce’. However, they themselves prefer to be called “cosmetically-challenged produce”.
Food loss is a global problem. According to the UN Food and Agricultural Organisation (FAO) every year about 40% of fruit and vegetables worldwide will go to waste before they even reach consumers.
In sub-Saharan Africa alone, approximately 50% of the fruit and vegetables harvested perishes during production, storage, transport, or processing. According to calculations by the UN Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO), roughly one-third of all fresh produce is lost somewhere between field and plate – on a global scale, this adds up to 1.3 billion tonnes every year and corresponds to carbon dioxide emissions of 3.3 gigatons.
Source: FAO
In some parts of the world, that is because there are no effective ways to store or transport the food. However, in much of the developed world, the reasons are primarily cosmetic. The Soil Association estimates that in the UK, 20-40% of produce is rejected because it’s misshapen. In America, 1 in 5 fruits and vegetables grown don’t fit grocery stores’ strict cosmetic standards. According to Intermarché, a leading French supermarket chain, 520 million fruit and vegetables are thrown away every year in France because they don’t apply to the standard measurements. According to The Guardian, in Australia supposedly 25% of farmers’ crops are rejected at the farm simply for not being up-to-scratch aesthetically. Indeed, some farmers see less than half of their produce pass muster.
The number gets even higher in emerging markets which only ship to the developed world the produce that fits the criteria established by their clients, the supermarkets. Until last year for instance, farmers in Kenya would have to cut off one third of the green bean size to fit Tesco’s requirements. Millions of wonderful avocadoes and mangos are being dumped to rot, just because they are too big for the European tastes. Or so farmers and exporters in East Africa are being told.
Why this is important?
These numbers are devastating in a world where there are 900 million hungry people and which is on the edge of a climate disaster. Global food production will need to increase by 60% by 2050 to feed our growing population, but throwing eatable food away is not helping us to reach this goal. According to the UN, cutting food waste by a quarter would mean enough nutrition for everyone.
This is not only a food issue. It is also an environmental and social issue. Wasted food uses scarce water and land resources, and when dumped in landfills it rots and emits methane into the atmosphere. Food waste accounts for about 8% of global climate pollution, more than India or Russia do.
What can be done?
While the supermarkets claim that the problem lies with consumers being too picky and not buying “ugly” produce, there is a counter argument that supermarket customers can only buy what they are offered in the first place. Supermarkets/ retailers should put that crooked carrot, curvy cucumber, or undersized apple on their shelves. By making the criteria for the looks and shape of fresh produce less strict, merely ugly food will not get thrown away.
Consumers should embrace and look for the natural shapes of fruit and vegetables. In the spring of 2016 Intermarché sold 200 tons of ‘ugly’ apples in France, as ‘category 2’ apples. Customers could buy them for a reduced price. However, the goal was not to start selling ugly produce as a new category. No, the goal of their campaigns was to change the mindset of their customers, so they don’t have to distinguish anymore between beautiful and ugly apples.
Governments have a huge role to play as well. On a national level, they should run educational consumer campaigns nudging people to change consumer perceptions and raise awareness of the benefits that “ugly” groceries create for the planet and for people.
What is being done already?
Many retailers all over the world are following Intermarché’s example of selling ugly produce. Imperfect Produce, a US startup, started with a delivery subscription in Los Angeles and the Bay of ugly produce at 30% to 50% discounts! Smartmat, a Belgian food delivery service is providing disformed local vegetables for their soups. Many more examples exist all over the world. Food producers, retail chains and campaign groups such as the Natural Resources Defense Council have also vowed to reduce food loss in the ReFED initiative. We hope the food industry is slowly changing their ways … and their customers along with them.
On a government level, France takes the cake. After the hilarious campaign of Intermarché, the French government passed national legislation banning supermarkets from throwing away or destroying unsold food. However, this example has yet to have any followers in other countries.
On a more international level, the Obama administration and the UN have pledged to halve avoidable food waste by 2030.
In 2011, Messe Düsseldorf, the number one trade fair in the world for the packaging industry, organised the SAVE FOOD Congress together with the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). They created a worldwide exposure for their cause. In the wake of this, the United Nation’s Environmental Programme UNEP joined as a further partner initiating the global “Think. Eat. Save.” project within SAVE FOOD. This program challenges food companies and supermarkets to take up the challenge of reducing food waste.
Who benefits?
From a demand and supply point of view this innovation could become game-changing because it will match demand and supply better. For instance, in Kenya, about one third of the avocadoes have been historically dumped to rot around the airport as they are too big for the European taste. At the same time people are starving less than ten km away but the wasted food could not reach them. According to leading chef Jamie Oliver on his website ‘Jamie’s Food Revolution’, also in Kenya, 300,000 tonnes of mangoes, or about 60% of the harvest, are being wasted every year. Thanks to the SAVE FOOD initiative the surplus is being turned into crisps, instead of left to rot.
Besides matching global demand and supply better, using ugly produce also reduces the ecological footprint of men on earth and contributes to reducing climate change.
Ugly food is not only helping the environment by reducing food waste. It is also financially sustainable because resources are not wasted at the level of the farmer.
For the retailer who buys the ugly vegetables, imperfections could reduce the price. In the short run, some of the margin can thus be passed on to consumers as an incentive to get to experience the imperfect produce. Another benefit is that it would make healthy food more accessible for everyone and help fight the globally spreading obesity. Currently, imperfect produce is sold on average at 30% discount compared to ‘perfect’ food.
For farmers, this means more produce is sold and fewer resources are wasted. However, we believe that farmers should receive equal pay for their produce, whether it looks appealing or not.
The future of ugly produce?
For ugly produce to reach its full potential, these initiatives should no longer be voluntary and uncoordinated. Governments and industry should work together to reduce aesthetic standards for fruit and vegetables everywhere in the world.
Lifting ugly produce out of the anonymity was the focus of this blog. However, the food industry can do much more. They can reduce their ecological footprint by using unavoidable food waste as source of renewable energy, re-using rinsing water for in flushing toilets or sourcing more local food.
Sources
http://www.lsa-conso.fr/l-esprit-moche-re-gagne-intermarche,239910
http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/nr/sustainability_pathways/docs/Factsheet_FOOD-WASTAGE.pdf
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2013/02/2013222152652620999.html
http://www.jamiesfoodrevolution.org/news/a-food-waste-win-the-kenyan-initiative-saving-mangos/
https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/misshapen-fruit-vegetables-business-case
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/jul/13/us-food-waste-ugly-fruit-vegetables-perfect
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2013/02/2013222152652620999.html
http://www.jamiesfoodrevolution.org/news/a-food-waste-win-the-kenyan-initiative-saving-mangos/
http://www.delhaize.be/nl-be/press_overview:Delhaize_expands_its_Ugly_Veggies_campaign_even_further
https://www.leket.org/en/?gclid=CL-R15-nytQCFU0Q0wodtmQOWw
The horrendous weight of society’s beauty standards manifesting in all areas of life. A tragedy, if I may say so myself.
Maybe there should be a support group for ugly fruit. Or, like, a Tinder for nasty apples. Somewhere where hideous radishes can wallow in misery, before being sold off to the highest bidder (after, obviously the “ugly” discount.) I’m in.
Srsly tho, if I can save 30% on groceries just by buying fruit that you all think is uggers, I’m down.
(Some people should probably follow this dating strategy as well. Just saying.)
I would love a Tinder for nasty apples. Great idea @kenjesus.
Marketing can play a big role in changing consumer perception of “ugly” produce. “Imperfect Produce” is a good start, but it does reach consumes where they most frequently shop. In order to really affect a large-scale shift in customer behavior, action is needed in large supermarkets across the developed world.
I wonder if food retailers could be inspired by the humor used in Intermarche’s video campaign. What if a special section were created in every store that called upon customers to buy “ugly produce” and used humor and discounts to attract interest?
Labeling them as “category 2” produce creates a hierarchy. Humor and fun facts could actually make some customers WANT misshapen fruits and vegetables because they are more interesting.
I didn’t know that the food waste accounted for so much of world pollution…
In my home country, there is a strict self-regulation by traditional agricultural organizations and the vegetables that could not meet the criteria cannot go to market, even though the vegetable itself is as nutritious as normal ones. It doesn’t make sense at all.
I hope this kind of initiatives/campaign generate a positive image toward ugly food, change consumer minds and put strong pressure on regulating organization and governments.
Great article. I believe the biggest challenge is to change customer’s perception of judging produce quality based on their aesthetic. Although government’s campaign can help with turning around this situation, I think there are more that retailers can do.
I agree with Cristina that calling these produce “category 2” creates hierarchy and I believe it might have a slight negative connotation to these “ugly” produce. I do think that having a separate section for these produce with the big discount sale can attract customers, after all most people do love sales items!!
Consumers definitely need to be exposed more to these “ugly” produce and be convinced that these items can be of good quality. Retailers can help in this campaign by providing these “ugly” produce and making sure that they are of high quality, which is extremely important because if customers find bad quality products then it will be very easy for them to go back to their old confirmation bias of “ugly produce = bad quality”.
If presenting consumers directly with ugly apples is such a major challenge, why not look to the restaurant and prepared food industries to use some of these products (since I assume carrot puree looks like carrot puree no matter what shape of carrot it came from)? Seems like at least a few pioneering places are already working on this…
http://insidescoopsf.sfgate.com/blog/2015/03/19/imperfectly-delicious-produce-a-new-outlet-for-ugly-but-good-produce/