Who You Callin Ugly?

Examining Consumer Perceptions of

Imperfect Produce and
Recommendations for Change
Alejandra Andrade
Community, Environment, and Planning 16
Senior Project

Table of Contents
ABSTRACT...............................................................................................................................................3
CONTEXT.................................................................................................................................................4
SIGNIFICANCE.......................................................................................................................................6
LITERATURE REVIEW.........................................................................................................................7
ECOLOGICAL IMPACTS OF FOOD WASTE.................................................................................................7
FOOD WASTE ALONG THE FOOD SUPPLY CHAIN.....................................................................................9
CONSUMER PERCEPTIONS AND BEHAVIOR.............................................................................................10
SURVEY METHODOLOGY..........................................................................................................................12
FOOD WASTE REDUCTION AND BEHAVIOR CHANGE..............................................................................13
METHODOLOGY..................................................................................................................................15
INTERVIEWS.............................................................................................................................................15
SURVEYS...................................................................................................................................................16
ANALYSIS OF EXISTING MODELS............................................................................................................19
INTERVIEWS.........................................................................................................................................19
FARMERS.................................................................................................................................................19
PRODUCE BUYERS AND SELLERS............................................................................................................21
RESULTS.................................................................................................................................................22
SURVEYS...................................................................................................................................................22
EXISTING MODELS..................................................................................................................................30
DISCUSSION...........................................................................................................................................32
FOOD SAFETY..........................................................................................................................................32
GENDER...................................................................................................................................................33
AGE..........................................................................................................................................................34
EXISTING MODELS & RECOMMENDATIONS............................................................................................34
LIMITATIONS........................................................................................................................................35
CONCLUSION........................................................................................................................................36
APPENDIX I............................................................................................................................................37
WORKS CITED......................................................................................................................................41

Abstract
Americanconsumerstendtoprefervisuallyappealingfruitsandvegetables,afactthatmakesit
difficultforfoodproducerstoselltheirimperfectproducetofooddistributors.Asaresult,more
thantwentypercentofallproducegrownforhumanconsumptionintheUnitedStatesnever
entersthefoodsupplychainduetominorsuperficialflawssuchasblemishesordeformities
(Kader,2005;Kantor,1997).Despitethesignificantimpactofsuchconsumerbehavior,there
hasbeenlittleresearchintowhyconsumershaveanaversiontouglyproduce,orhowtogo
aboutchangingtheirnegativeperceptions.Toaddressthesegaps,thisresearchusesconsumer
surveysconductedonlineandatfarmersmarketsandgrocerystoresaswellasinterviewswith
farmersandproducebuyersandsellerstounderstandconsumerpurchasingdecisionsandthe
misconceptionsaroundimperfectproduce.Thisresearchalsoexaminestacticsusedbycurrent
educationalcampaignsandbusinessmodelsgearedtowardchangingconsumerperceptionsand
comparesthemwiththesurveyandinterviewresults.Drawingonthefindingsfromthiswork,
thestudyconcludeswithaseriesofrecommendationstoimprovecurrentconsumertargeted
educationalcampaignstoshiftnegativeperceptionsofimperfectproduceandreducefoodwaste
throughoutthefoodsupplychain.

Context
TheindustrializationofagriculturehasledtoanexponentialgrowthinAmericanfood
production.However,withindustrializationandurbanization,peoplehavebecomefarremoved
fromthefoodsystem.This,coupledwithanarbitrarygradingsystemforblemishfreeproduce
setinplacebytheUSDA,consumershavebeenconditionedtoseekoutandvalueperfect
lookingproduce.
USDAgradingstandardsgradeproduceonaseriesofcriteria,oneofthemostdamaging
ofwhichmightjustbecosmeticappearance.UniformityishighlyrankedintheUSDAsgrading
systemandcanleadtoanyproducethatisimperfecttobegradedlowerthanothers,sinceonly
producethatisperfectinshape,color,andsizecanbeclassifiedasgradeA.Althoughtheterm
imperfectproducemightconjureupimagesofmoldyorotherwiseinedibleproduce,thisis
simplynotthecase.Imperfectproduceisperfectlyedibleandhealthyproduce;itsimplydoesnot
fitthehighcosmeticstandardssetbytheUSDAduetominorissueslikedeformitiesor
blemishes.Currently,vastamountsoffoodgotowasteeveryyearintheUnitedStates.The
countrysfoodwasteproblemsarepervasiveandpresentateverylevelofthefoodsupplychain,
fromfarmstoAmericanhouseholds(Parfittetal,2010).Overtwentypercentofallproduce
grownforhumanconsumptionintheUnitedStatesneverevenleavesthefarmandgoesuneaten
becauseofblemishesorimperfections(Kader,2005).
ThestigmaAmericanconsumershavetowardimperfectproducehasahighpricetag.
Duetoconsumerdemandforonlythebestlookingproduce,morethan$165milliondollars
worthofthisimperfectproduceneverleavesfarmsandiswastedeachyear(NRDC,2013).This
staggeringamountofwastecontinuesonacrosstheentirefoodsupplychain,endingwith

consumers.AtatimewhenoneinsixAmericansaregoinghungryeachyear,itisashameso
muchviableproduceiswastedeachyearwhenitcouldbefeedingpeoplewhoneedit.While
governmentpoliciessurroundingthegradingoffruitareanimportantplayerinourfoodwaste
problem,consumersalsoholdagreatdealofpower.
Unfortunately,consumersseemtohaveanaversiontoimperfectproduceandbecause
fooddistributorsmaininterestslieinprovidingfoodthatconsumerswillbuy,producerscannot
evenbringtheirimperfectproducetomarket(TobinandLaBorde,2011).Ifconsumerswere
moreacceptingofslightlyblemishedfruitsandvegetables,distributorswouldbemorewillingto
acceptthefruitfromproducers,andproducerswouldnothavetocullhealthy,edibleproducefor
solelycosmeticreasons(Kantor,1997).Theresultwouldbeamoreefficientandproductivefood
supplychain.
Thisissueofimperfectproduceanditscontributiontofoodwastehasgarneredglobal
attentionwithcountrieslikeDenmark,France,andCanadaalreadyofferingimperfectproducein
theirconventionalgrocerystores.Whileorganizations,businesses,andcampaignshavebeen
sproutingupintheUnitedStatesoverthelastseveralyearstotackleimperfectproduce,the
UnitedStatesisstillfarbehindtheseothercountries.Pilotprojectshavestartedtobeginoffering
uglyproduceinselectedgrocerystorechains,suchasWholeFoods.However,theseexistinonly
severallocations,notnationwide.Althoughthereareorganizationsworkingtochangeexisting
consumerperceptions,clearlytherearestillimportantbarriersholdingconsumersbackfrom
gettingonboardwithimperfectproduceinAmericaneedtobeaddressed.

Forthisreason,thequestionsmyresearchseekstoexamineare:(1)Whatarethese
negativeperceptionsthatconsumershaveaboutimperfectproduce?(2)Howwellarecurrent
organizationsintheimperfectproducerealmaddressingtheseperceptions?

Significance
IspentoverayearworkingwiththeSeattlegleaningorganization,CityFruit,which
openedupmyeyestotheissueoffoodwasteandhowconvolutedourfoodsysteminAmerica
canbe.OneoftheorganizationsmainrolesisfacilitatingthestewardshipofSeattlespublic
orchards,sinceParksandRecreationdoesnothavetheresourcestocarefortheorchards
themselves.Onewouldthinkthatparkuserswouldquicklyconsumethefree,freshfruitina
publicpark.However,thatisoftennotthecase.Muchofthefruitinpublicorchardsendsup
fallingtothegroundandrottingbecausenoonepicksitasidefromtheorganizedworksparties
facilitatedbythirdpartyorganizations,suchasCityFruit.Aftersomeresearchformy
EnvironmentalStudiesCapstone,Ifoundthatthisoftenhastodowithusersnotknowingthatthe
fruitisevenedibleorsafetoeatbecauseitdoesnotalwayslookliketheshiny,perfectlyround
fruitfoundingrocerystores.Thecommonmisconceptionthatimperfectfruitisunhealthyor
inedible,coupledwiththestaggeringamountofproducethatgetstossedattheproductionlevel
becausefarmersknowconsumerswillnotbuyit,hasspurredmyinterestinpursuingaproject
aroundconsumersandfoodwaste.
Thisprojectisalsosignificantformeasanenvironmentalist.Therearemanynegative
environmentalimpactsassociatedwithtoday'sintensivefarmingpractices,suchasincreased
waterscarcityandcarbonemissions(Halletal,2010).Ifasignificantportionofthefoodthat
usedupsomanyresourcestogrowultimatelygetsthrowninthetrash,thenthoseresourceswere

completelywasted.Withapressingglobalenvironmentalcrisisonourhands,itistimetostart
thinkingaboutAmericanresourceuseandgrowingourfoodsmarter.Thereductionoffood
wastewouldimpactnotonlytheenvironment,butwouldincreasetheamountoffoodavailable
inthefoodsystemandpotentially,helptofeedourcountry'sfoodinsecureindividuals.
Theimportanceoffoodwastereductionisanissuethathasrecentlygarneredmuch
publicattention.Ihopetofurtherpushtheagendatomakearealchangeinourfoodsystemby
beingabletoprovideanswersastohowtobeginchangingthesewidespreadperceptionsofugly
produce.Ihopethatmyresearchwillprovidemorefueltothefiretohelpchangepolicyaround
foodwasteandpushforlocallegislationthatcracksdownontheissue.

Literature Review
Duetothegapincurrentresearchonconsumerperceptionsofimperfectproduce,this
literaturereviewseekstocontextualizemyprojectbyexaminingthecurrentstateoffoodwaste
inAmericaanditsrelationshipwithblemishedproduce.Thisliteraturereviewexaminesfood
lossesalongthesupplychainandspecificallyinproduction,aswellastheimpactsoffoodwaste
onaglobalscale,consumerperceptionsandbehavior,andexplorescurrentmodelsandproposed
solutionsaimedatchangingconsumerbehaviorandreducingfoodwaste.

Ecological Impacts of Food Waste

Foodwasteisaseriousissuethatneedstobetackledbecauseithasasubstantialimpact
onmanyoftheplanetsscarcenaturalresources,suchasfreshwater,arableland,andfertilizers
(Kummu,etal.2012).AstudyexaminingtheeffectsoffoodwasteonEarthsecologicalsystems
foundthathumansonlyconsumeabouthalfoftheworldstotalfoodsupply,while16%ofthat
supplyislostorwastedwithinthefoodsupplychain(Kummu,etal.2012).Regionally,thereare
7

hugedifferences,especiallyindevelopedcountrieswhere54%offoodiswastedwithinthefood
supplychain(Kummu,etal.2012).
Likewise,Halletal.(2009)examinestheenvironmentalimpactsoffoodwasteinthe
UnitedStates,focusingspecificallyonenergyusebycalculatingtheenergycontentoffood
wastefromthedifferencebetweenthefoodsupplyandfoodconsumedbythepopulation.Much
liketheKummuetal.(2012)findings,theresultsshowedthatfoodwasteisresponsibleformore
thanaquarterofthecountrystotalfreshwaterconsumptionandaround300millionbarrelsofoil
peryear(Hall,etal.2009).Notonlyisfoodwastecarelesslyusingupfreshwaterresourcesand
fossilfuels,butalsoitisdirectlycontributingtoclimatechange.Foodwastecomprisesa
significantportionofwastegoingintomunicipallandfillsandproduceslargequantitiesof
methane,whichhasasignificantlylargerglobalwarmingpotentialthanthatofcarbondioxide,
theproductthatwouldhavebeenproducedhadhumansinsteadeatenthefood(NRDC,2013;
Halletal.,2009).3.3billiontonsofgreenhousegasesareaddedtoEarth'satmosphereeachyear
becauseoffoodwaste,makingitoneofthetopemittersaftertheUnitedStatesandChina(FAO,
2013).
Addressingfoodwastecanhelpcurtailthesenegativeimpactsonscarceresourcesand
ecologicalprocesses.Anarticleanalyzingtheimpactsfoodlossreductioncanhaveonglobal
foodinsecurity,naturalresources,andgreenhousegasemissionsfoundthata50%reductionin
foodlossindevelopedcountriescouldleadtoa3.4Mhadecreaseofglobalharvestedland,a
58.6Gm3decreaseinglobalwaterusage,anda74.3Mtdecreaseintotalgreenhousegas
emissionsofcarbondioxideequivalent(Munesue2014).Additionally,suchareductioninfood
losscouldreducethenumberofmalnourishedpeopleindevelopingregionsby63.3million

people,7.4%oftheglobalmalnourishedpopulation(Munesue2014).
BothKummuetal.(2012)andHalletal.(2009)showtheveryseriousenvironmental
implicationsfoodwastecanhaveandhowitnegativelyimpactstheavailabilityofnatural
resources,highlightingtheneedtoalleviatetheamountoffoodwastebeingproducesandwitha
senseofurgency,asourplanetisalreadyfacingmanyenvironmentalproblems.Meanwhile,
Munesue(2014)demonstratesthepotentialtomitigatetheseharmfulimpactsshouldfoodlosses
inthedevelopedworldbeaddressed.Thesearticlesarerelevanttomyprojectbyestablishing
thatfoodwasteisindeedapressingmatterthatneedstobeaddressedandsolved,whichmy
projectaimstocontributetobystudyingfoodwastethatoccurswithedible,blemishedproduce.

Food Waste Along the Food Supply Chain

Thefoodsupplychainiscomprisedofalltheactorsthatmovefoodfromfarmtotable,
includingfarmers,foodbuyersanddistributors,grocerystores,andconsumers.Foodwaste
occursateachstepofthesupplychainforeverytypeoffood;however,fruit,vegetables,roots
andtuberssufferfromexceptionallyhighlosseswhencomparedtoothertypesoffood(Rutten
2013).Astudyexaminingmethodsforreducingpostharvestlossestoincreasefoodavailability
estimatesthatalmostonethirdofallfreshfruitsandvegetablesproducedworldwidearelost
beforereachingconsumers(Kader2005).IntheUnitedStatesspecifically,losesareestimatedto
rangebetween223%ofallproducegrown.Kader(2005)arguesthelargestportionofthisisdue
tooutgradingorproducenotmeetingahighenoughaestheticgradebyUSDAgrading
standards.However,theactualamountisdifficulttoquantifyanddatasourcesarelargely
anecdotal.

Similarly,Kantoretal.(1997)attemptstoestimateAmerica'sfoodlossesatvarious
levelsofthefoodsupplychainandfoundthatfoodlossesonthefarmorbetweenthefarmand
retaillevelsofthesupplychainaredifficulttoquantifydueofthenatureofanecdotalevidence,
butalsosuggeststhattheselossescanbequitelargeforcertainfoods.Kantoretal.(1997)asserts
thatproductionlevelfoodlossescancomefrompreharvestlossesduetosevereweather,pests,
ortechnologicalfactorssuchasmechanicalerrors.However,manyoftheproductionlevel
losses,especiallywithfruitsandvegetables,canbeattributedtoeconomicfactorsthataffect
producerswillingnesstobringtheproducetomarket.Kantoretal.(1997),muchlikeKader
(2005),arguesthatminimumqualitystandardsforfreshproduceandconsumerdemandfor
perfectproduceplaythelargestroleinproducersselectivelyharvestingandleavingany
misshapenorflawedproduceinthefield,whichinturncontributestofoodwasteandremoves
perfectlysafeandedibleproducefromthefoodsupplychain.
AnotherstudyexaminingcropseliminatedfromAmerica'sfoodsystem,withafocuson
Hawai'i,echoesbothKantoretal.andKaderandattributestheeliminationofover40%ofall
cropsproducedand60%ofcommoncropsfromthefoodsystemtoconsumerdemandsfor
perfectproduce(Ta'afaki2015).However,Ta'afaki(2015)goesevenfurthertoarguethatthese
consumerdemandsarereinforcedbygovernmentpolicies,suchasUSDAgradingregulations
thatrequireproducetobe90%blemishfree.
Allthreeofthesearticlesdemonstratethepervasivenessofconsumerobsessionwith
perfectproduceandthetrickledownaffectithasonfoodsupplychain,reachingalltheway
downtotheproductionlevelandinfluencingharvestingpractices.Thisexemplifiestheneedto
addressconsumerperceptionsofimperfectproduceinordertochangebehaviorsandreduce

10

waste,whichmyprojectseekstodothroughgreaterunderstandingofwhattheseperceptionsare
exactlyandwhatmethodscanbyemployedtochangethem.

Consumer Perceptions and Behavior

Consumershelptodrivemarketsthroughtheirpurchasingdecisions.Itisimportantto
understandwhyconsumersmakecertaindecisioninregardstoproduceandtheinfluencethose
decisionshaveinordertobringaboutanymeaningfulchange.Astudyexaminingcausesfor
foodwastewithintheglobalfoodsupplychainthroughanextensiveliteraturereviewand
interviewswithsupplychainexpertsfoundthatdemandforperfectproducehasledtolarge
postharvestlossesoffreshfruitsandvegetablesbecausetheydonotmeetarbitrarycosmetic
standards(Parfitt,BarthelandMacnaughton2010).Thearticlealsofoundthatmuchof
consumerfoodwasteindevelopedcountriesstemsfromacomplexmixofconsumerattitudes,
valuesandbehaviorstowardsfood.Thestudysuggeststhatonewaytoachievefoodwaste
reductionisthroughpushingforculturalshiftsinhowconsumersvaluefood.Thisissupported
byanearlierstudyexaminingproduceconsumptionatfarmer'smarketsandsupermarkets,much
likemyprojectaimstodo,whichfoundthatconsumerswhosupportregionalandseasonal
consumptiontendtobelessfocusedonaestheticsandmoreinterestedinproducefreshnessand
flavor(FjeldandSommer1982).
Tobin,Thomson,andLaBorde(2011)examinetheimportanceofconsumerperceptions
throughthelensofproducesafety;however,whattheyfoundisalsoapplicabletomyresearch
intofoodwaste.ThearticlediscussestheTheoryofPlannedBehavior,whichseekstoexplain
theunderlyingreasonsforindividualbehavior,andhowitrelatestoassessingconsumer
perceptionsofproducesafety.Thearticlearguesthatinfoodsafetypolicyandpractice,

11

consumerperceptionsarecrucialforothersinthecommoditychaintoconsider,asconsumers
arethestakeholdersthatdrivedemand.ThissupportsParfitt,Barthel,andMacnaughton(2010)
inclaimingthataculturalshiftinhowconsumersvaluefoodcanleadtoreducedfoodwaste
becauseifconsumersnolongerdemandperfectproduce,thendemandwilldecreaseandopen
upmarketstoblemishedproduce.
Similarly,thearticleGettingOverOurPreferenceforPerfectProducearguesthata
changeattheconsumerlevelcanhavefarreachingeffectsontherestofcommoditychainand
thechangeinconsumerbehaviormightoverrideanyarbitraryproduceassessmentbasedon
aestheticsbytheUSDAorotherorganization(Tsui2014).Thesearticlesrelatetomyproject
becausetheydemonstratetheimportanceofidentifyingconsumerperceptionsandvalues
surroundingimperfectfruitsothatthesecanbeaddressedandhopefullychangedviaappropriate
avenues.

Survey Methodology
Myprojectseekstoexamineconsumerperceptionsandthereasonsbehindsuch
perceptionsofblemishedproducethroughconsumersurveysofshoppersatsupermarketsand
farmersmarkets.Astudyexaminingconsumeracceptanceofimperfectproduceusedanin
personconsumerinterviewtoassessconsumerpurchasingdecisionsbasedontheconsumers
willingnesstopurchase(Bunn,etal.1990).Theresearchersselectedsurveyparticipantsthrough
arandomsamplingofeverythirdsupermarketshoppertoexitthemarket.Iftheshopperdeclined
tobeinterviewed,theinterviewercontinuedcountingandselectedthenextthirdshoppertoexit
thestore.Iftheshopperagreedtoparticipate,theinterviewershowedtheshopperthreecolor
photographsofdifferentoranges.Mostresearchindicatesrelativelyhighlevelsof

12

correspondenceinresponsetocolorphotographsandactualrepresentationofenvironmental
stimuli(Bunn,etal.1990).Eachphotographshowntoparticipantsrepresentedanorangeof
varyingdegreesofcosmeticdamage.Thefirstphotographusedasthestandardrepresenteda
cosmeticallyperfectorange,thesecondphotographrepresentedaslightlymoredamagedorange
(level1),andthelastrepresentsanevenmoredamagedorange(level2).Consumerswerethen
askedtoranktheirwillingnesstopurchaseeachorangeona5pointscale,rangingfrommuch
lesswillingtomorewillingtopurchasewhencomparedtothestandard.Thismethodof
determiningacceptancebasedonwillingnesstopurchasehasbeenshowntoyieldresults
similartoobservationsofconsumermarketdecisions(Bunn,etal.1990).
Inadditiontowillingnesstopurchase,thestudycollecteddemographicdataonsurvey
participants;however,itdidnotfindastatisticallysignificantdifferencebetweenwillingnessto
purchasetheproduceandage,income,educationlevel,gender,orethnicity.Toanalyzeresults,
theresearchersestimatedanorderedmultinomiallogitmodelofafullscaledummyvariable
structure.Thismethodologyisrelevanttomyprojectbecausethestudywaslookingatconsumer
decisionmaking,similartowhatmyprojectseekstoexamine.The5pointscalemethodtorank
consumerdecisionsisusefultomyprojectasawaytolookatwhatproduceconsumersare
drawntoandwhy.The5pointscaleusedalsomakesstatisticalanalysisfairlystraightforward.
Boththemethodologyinsurveydesignandsurveyadministrationusedinthisstudyis
relevanttomyprojectbecausesinceI,too,wanttosurveygrocerystoreandmarketshoppers.I
candrawonBunnetal.s(1990)surveyadministrationtechniquestocompletemyownsurveys.
Icanalsodrawonthestudysstyleofsurveyquestionswiththewillingnesstopurchaseand5
pointscalequestionsasabasisformyownquestions.Thedifferencebetweenmystudyandthe

13

studydoneliesinmyinterestastothereasoningbehindthedecisionmakingaswellasthe
decisionitself.Forthis,Ineedtoincludeadditionalmethodstogarnerdetailedanswersbehind
motivation.

Food Waste Reduction and Behavior Change

Inadditiontoexaminingfoodwasteinthefoodsupplychain,Parfitt,Barthel,and
Macnaughton(2010)alsodelveintowaystoreduceglobalfoodwasteandexplorepotential
modelsfordoingso.Thearticleconcedesthatalthoughconsumerbehaviorshiftsareimportant,
theseneedtobecoupledwithpolicychangestowardmoresustainablefoodproductionand
consumptiontoensurelastingandmeaningfulchange.Oneexampleexploredinthearticleisthe
possibledevelopmentofaclosedloopsupplychainmodel,wherewasteisreintroducedinto
thevaluechain,sonowasteproductsareleftover.Forinstance,openingupalternativeroutesfor
uglyfruitorusinginevitablefoodwasteforbioenergy.Otherpolicychangeswereproposedin
anNRDCreportonfoodwastealongsupplychain,aretherelaxationofaestheticquality
standardsoreventhecreationofaseparateproductlinetosellblemishedproduce.Thesewould
createmorefavorableconditionsforfarmerstoharvestanddistributorstoacceptunconventional
produce(NRDC,2013).
Additionally,Bunnetal.(1990)proposestheneedforgreatercollaborationbetween
consumereducators,agriculturalscientists,foodprocessorsandretailers.Supportingthis
recommendation,aseparatestudyexaminingfoodwastealongthesupplychainfoundthatthe
lackofcoordinationamongsupplychainmembers,isoneofthemaincausesoffoodwastein
developedregions,alongwithconsumerbehavior(Bagherzadeh,InamuraandJeong2014).The
articles'recommendationsformoresustainablefoodpolicy,increasedcollaborationalongthe

14

foodsupplychain,andtherepurposingoffoodwasteintousefulproductsprovideinteresting
avenuestoexploreasIdelveintotherecommendationsandnextstepssectionsofmyproject.
Alongwithaddressingpolicyandrepurposingfoodwaste,educationalmodelshavebeen
exploredasameanstoinfluenceconsumerbehaviorinfoodpurchasingdecisionsandreduce
foodwaste.Bunnetal.(1990)foundthatconsumereducationcan"substantiallyincrease
consumeracceptance"ofblemishedproduce.Thisisespeciallytruewhenargumentsgeared
towardpersonalhealthbenefitsorecologicalbenefitswerepresentedtoconsumers.Bunnetal.s
(1990)findingsareintriguingwhentakingintoconsiderationTaafakis(2015)critiqueof
Americasbreedingforhomogeneityandhardinesscontributingtotodaysmainstreamproduce
lackinginnutritionandtastewhencomparedtononmainstreamproduce.Taafakis(2015)
assertioncouldmakeapersuasiveargumentforpersonalhealthbenefitsofnonmainstream
produce.
However,Bunnetal.s(1990)findingshavebeenslightlycontradictedinamorerecent
studyofconsumerfoodwastebehavior,whichfoundthatawarenessofeconomicconsequences
wereamuchgreatermotivatorinfoodwastebehaviorthansocialorecologicalconsequences
(Stancu,HaugaardandLahteenmaki2015).Thestudysuggeststhatconsumerfoodwaste
behaviorislargelymotivatedbyselfinterestandthatconsumersidentifyfoodwasteasafood
related,andnotenvironmental,behavior.
Therearecurrentlyseveralcampaignsaimedatgettingconsumerstoseeuglyproduce
inanewlight(Geiling2015).Onesuchcampaign,IngloriousFruitsandVegetables,was
launchedin2014byoneofFranceslargestsupermarketchains,Intermarch. The campaign was
aimed at elevating cosmetically imperfect produce that would otherwise be thrown away through
multimedia marketing and selling it to customers at discounted prices. Inspired by Inglorious
15

Fruits and Vegetables, Jordan Figueiredo created the Ugly Fruit and Veg campaign on Instagram
to stop consumer misconceptions about ugly produce being bad produce.
ThesearticlesprovidekeyinformationtoconsiderinmyprojectasIpresent
recommendationstohelpchangeconsumerpurchasingbehaviorandpointtousingmore
personaleducationalapproachestoresonatemorewithconsumers.

Methodology
Interviews
Inordertogainacomprehensiveunderstandingofmotivationsforwastingfoodalongthe
foodsupplychainandhowvarioussupplychainmembersviewimperfectproduceinthemarket
place,Ichosetoconductinformalinterviewswithfivelocalproducebuyersandsellers,aswell
assevenlocalfarmers.Theinterviewsservedasasupplementtomyliteraturereview,which
lackedinformationonimperfectproducespecifically.Thequestioningfollowedsimilarformats
foreachinterview,buteachwastailoredtothespecificexperiencesofthebuyersandsellersor
farmers.
Theinterviewquestionsforthefarmersmainlycenteredaroundtheamountofwastethat
isbeingproduceontheirfarmsduetocosmeticdamage,howtheychosetohandlesuchwaste,
whattheypersonallythinkabouttheUSDAgradingstandards,andtheirthoughtsontheugly
producemovementasawholeandinwhatways,ifany,ithasimpactedthem.Forthefive
farmersthatselltheirproduceatfarmersmarkets,Ialsoaskedabouttheirpersonalexperiences
withcustomersandhowtheyhaveseencustomersinteractwithproducestraightfromthefarm.
TheproducebuyersandsellersthatIinterviewedwerefromCharliesProduce,Whole
Foods,andPCC.Intheseinterviews,Ifocusedspecificallyonthecriteriathattheyusewhen
16

buyingproduceorthecriteriacustomerslookforwhenbuyingfromthem.Ialsowascuriousto
findoutiftheyhaveseenashiftindemandoverthelastseveralyearsastheuglyproduce
movementhasbeguntospringup.

Surveys
Tofullyunderstandconsumerpurchasingdecisionsandthemisconceptionsaround
imperfectproduce,Ichosetoconductconsumersurveys.Thesurveysadministeredforthisstudy
werecreatedusingtheonlinesurveysite,SurveyMonkey,andwereadministeredbothinperson
atbothlocalfarmersmarketsandconventionalgrocerystores,aswellasonline.Thesurveys
administeredatSeattlefarmersmarketstookplaceattwodifferentmarketlocations:Ballard
andCapitolHill.Thedecisiontochangelocationsforthemarketsurveyswasmadetoavoidany
possibleresurveyingofmembersofthesamesamplegroup.Thegrocerystoresurveystook
placeataSafewayandataWholeFoodsbothintheRooseveltneighborhoodofSeattleonfive
differentdays,atvaryingtimeblocks.Thesestoreswerechosenbecauseofeaseofaccessand
becauseIwasgrantedpermissionbythestorestoconductmysurveys.Toensureadecent
samplesize,Ialsoadministeredmysurveysonlineusingacrowdsourcingplatform,
Crowdflower.Usingthissite,Iwasabletonarrowthegeographicrangeofsurveytakerstojust
theSeattlearea,forconsistencypurposes.Intotal,218respondentstookthesurvey.
MymethodologyforinpersonconsumersurveysdrewonBunnetal.s(1990)survey
methods.Foreveryroundofsurveysadministered,thesurveyingperiodlastedexactlyonehour.
Inthathour,foreveryfivepeoplecountedexitingthestore,thefifthwasaskedtoparticipateina
survey.Iftheyaccepted,thesurveywasthenadministered.Iftheydeclined,thecountresumed
untilthenextfifthperson.Therewasslightvarianceinsurveymethodsforthegrocerystoreand

17

farmersmarketsduetotheoutdoornatureofthemarkets.Withgrocerystoresurveys,only
everyfifthpersonexitingthegrocerystoreexitthatIwaspositionedatwascounted.Forthe
marketsurveys,Istoodnearafarmertent,withtheirconsent,andonlycountedpeoplepassing
directlyinfrontofme.
ThesurveyquestionsconsistedoftwoLikertscalequestionsthatwereweightedona5
pointscaleandonewillingnesstopurchasepicturecomparison.Aftereachofthesequestions,
therewasafreeresponsespacewhererespondentscouldfurtherelaborateontheiranswersand
addanyadditionalanswersthatwerenotavailable.Therewereanadditionalthreequestionsfor
demographicpurposesattheendofthesurvey.
ThesurveyusedinthisstudycanbefoundinAppendixI.ThefirstLikertscalequestion
hadrespondentsrankhowimportantcertaincriteriaarewhentheypurchaseproduceonascale
ofnotatallimportanttoveryimportant.Thequestionthencontainedaseriesofeleven
differentcriteriaIfoundtoconsistentlybementionedthroughoutmyliteraturereviewandin
interviewssuchasUSDAcertifiedorganic,local,price,etc.Afterthisquestion,therewasa
commentboxaskingrespondentstolistanyothercriterianotlistedthattheyfindimportant
whenpurchasingproduce.
Thenextquestionshowedrespondentsaseriesofthreephotosofthesameapplevariety,
exceptwithvaryingdegreesofcosmeticdamage.Thefirstpicturedepictedslightlyimperfect
apples,theseconddepictedtheapplesthatwerethemostobviouslyimperfectwithdiscoloration
andslightscabbing,andthelastweretheperfectapples.Respondentsthenhadtorankthe
picturesbythelikelihoodthatwouldpurchasetheapplesshown,with1beingthemostlikelyto

18

purchaseand3beingtheleastlikelytopurchase.Afterthisquestion,therewasanothercomment
boxwhererespondentshadtoelaborateontheirrankingdecisions.
ThethirdquestionwasanotherLikertscalequestionthathadrespondentsrankhowlikely
theywouldbetopurchaseimperfectproducegivencertaincircumstances.Therewereatotalof
fivedifferentcircumstancesprovidedandthesewerechosenbasedonmyfindingsinthe
literaturereviewandthroughinterviews.SomeoftheprovidedcircumstancesincludedwereifI
weregiveninstructionsonhowtocookwithimperfectproduce,iftheproduceischeaperthan
conventionproduce,etc.Onceagain,attheendofthequestionrespondentsweregivena
commentboxtoincludeanyotherreasonstheywouldpurchaseimperfectproducethatwerenot
includedinthepreviousquestion.
AllonlineresultsweregatheredbySurveyMonkeyandinpersonresultsweremanually
inputted.Mostdataanalysiswasconductedusingthesitesdataanalysistools.Allsurveyresults
werealsoexportedintoExcelandATLAS.ti.Statisticaltestingbetweendatasetswasconducted
throughExcelandallfreeresponseanswerswerecodedinATLAS.tiforanalysisusingsimilar
thecodingmethodstoWeng(2015).

Analysis of Existing Models

Lastly,Iexaminedcurrentbusinesses,organizations,andcampaignsworkingwithinthe
imperfectproducerealm.IchosetoexaminethemostpopularU.S.organizationsbasedonwhich
werethemostsearchedandmentionedorganizationsinthemedia.Iexaminedtheirsocialmedia
sitesandwebsites,lookingspecificallyattheirmissionstatementsandtherhetoricusedaround
uglyproduce.Ithencameupwithseveralthemesthatwerepresentthroughoutthese

19

organizationsandcomparedthemwithmysurveyresultstoanalyzewhetherornotthemain
consumerconcernsidentifiedinmysurveyswerebeingaddressedbytheseorganizations.

Interviews
Farmers
My interviews with farmers were fairly lengthy, all of them lasting around thirty minutes.
These interviews focused on the farmers personal experiences with food waste and ugly produce
that cannot go to market, and their own methods for dealing with such waste. Every farmer had
varying sizes of operations and access to resources, therefore each had their own unique way of
dealing with waste and imperfect produce in particular. For those running larger-scale operations
or who farmed in more populated areas, their access to resources that can help deal with excess
waste was obviously much greater than the others who live in less populated areas or who farm
at a much smaller scale.
Only two of the farmers that I interviewed had access to such resources that allowed them
to deal with imperfect produce in more sustainable ways. One farmer harvests land that is close
to a processing plant, so he can afford to divert some of his ugly produce to be processed and
used in packaged foods like canned soup or fruit. However, only certain kinds of produce are
needed by the plant. If he has an excess of a type of produce not wanted by the plant, then it
usually winds up in the landfill.
The other farmer with greater access to resources runs his operations in a fairly populated
area, where a food recovery group has formed to deal specifically with the issue of waste on
farms. Usually after a harvest, the food recovery group will come in and gather all the produce

20

that cannot go to market and will distribute it amongst themselves and the surrounding
community, by donating the majority to food banks or meal programs.
For the rest of the farmers, the below-grade produce that cannot go to market usually
winds up as waste. The farmers mentioned that they do try to use as much as they can as animal
feed, compost, or by eating it themselves. However, this only deals with a fraction of the amount
that they have and inevitably, a great deal still ends up going to waste.
All of the farmers expressed frustration over the USDA grading standards that keep
viable produce out of the food supply chain because it forces unnecessary losses on the farmers.
The losses incurred are not just financial, but also include the labor, time, and resources that went
into planting, growing, and harvesting the produce. To make matters worse, all the farmers
discussed the overall lack of outlets for imperfect produce.
Many mentioned that they have heard of at least one organization that deals with
imperfect produce, but argue that these are still few and far between and there is certainly not
enough to absorb the sheer amount of ugly produce that cannot be brought to market each year.
One farmer discussed how the ugly produce movement is still a very nascent movement, and
while we hear a lot of stink about it in the media, the truth is there arent many options available
for [farmers]. The majority of the farmers expressed a desire to see more outlets open up for
ugly produce and welcome the movement in general. As one farmer put it, any way that [he]
can recover some of those losses is a win for [him], otherwise its just a waste all around.
Another common theme that came up in all of the interviews though not always
specifically about imperfect produce, but relevant nonetheless, was the farmers frustration over
the way the American government and American consumers value food. One farmer, originally
from the Netherlands, argued that there is a big cultural difference between the U.S. and Western

21

Europe when it comes to how food, and the people who grow it, are valued. He contended that,
food here [in the U.S.] isnt valued like it needs to be. People here look for whats cheap, but
thats not fair to the farmer! In 1980, 31% of the money spent on food went back to farmer. Now,
only 16% does. People just dont appreciate their food anymore. Another farmer, speaking of
imperfect produce waste and food waste in general, argues that the problem is systemic. Since
World War II, the public has been accustomed to produce without imperfections. We are taught
to want perfection and all the other stuff [consumers] dont see, almost doesnt exist to them.
When the same farmer was asked about how to even go about changing this expectation of
perfection from consumers, she said, it would mean people would have to think and we arent
accustomed to having to think about our food. It would be an educational process.

Produce Buyers and Sellers

The produce buyers and sellers interviewed for this study echoed much of what the
farmers were saying regarding the fact that the imperfect produce movement is still very new and
this has not necessarily translated into a large enough demand that forces stores to rethink their
purchasing habits. As one produce seller from Charlies Produce mentioned, [buyers and sellers]
are forced to buy what is being demanded. And that demand is just not there. All of the buyers
and sellers that were interviewed expressed similar sentiments. They feel as though, so far, the
imperfect produce movement has had little impact on their jobs and the criteria they have to
follow when purchasing for or selling to outlets.
However, a produce buyer from Whole Food talked about how the industry is just now
seeing a slight change and how Whole Foods new pilot program partnering with Imperfect
Produce is testing the strength of this demand to see if there is a significant market for it.

22

All of the interviewed produce buyers and sellers also discussed the role that USDA
grading standards are playing in the issue with ugly produce. They all seemed to agree that these
standards are ultimately hurtful, but have a significant impact on what they are asked to buy and
sell. Although they agree that these standards need to change, they also agree that it needs to start
with consumers. A Charlies Produce seller stated, consumers really do have the power here. If
they start making a fuss about it, the grocery stores will fall into line to make them happy.
[Consumers] have the power to really move this imperfect produce thing forward.

Results
Surveys
Thesurveyresultsshowedthatamongthemostcommoncriteriathatconsumerslookfor
whenpurchasingfreshproduceareproduceripeness,alackofanybruisesormarkings,price,
whethertheproducelookslikeittastesgood,andhowhealthytheproducelooks.Allofthese
criteriaaveragedaweightedscoreabovea4,meaningthemajorityofrespondentsansweredthat
thecriteriawaseithersomewhatorveryimportant.Figure1belowshowsthepercentageof
respondentanswersforeachcategory.Thedarkgreendepictsthepercentageofrespondentswho
answeredveryimportant.Thelightgreendepictsthepercentagewhoanswersomewhat
important.Thepercentageofrespondentswhoansweredneutralisshowningrey.The
percentageofrespondentswhoanswerednotveryimportantinshowninorange,andlastly,the
darkorangedepictsthepercentageofrespondentswhoanswerednotatallimportant.
Not surprisingly, price is among the top concerns for consumers when purchasing
produce, with 89% of respondents considering it either a very important or somewhat important
factor. Among the other top concerns for respondents when purchasing produce were whether or

23

not the produce looks like it tastes good with 88% of respondents identifying this as somewhat to
very important, and lack of bruises or markings and ripeness, both with 81% of respondents
identifying this as somewhat or very important.
Although price seemed to be the most important criteria consumers take into
consideration when buying produce, the results from question 4 add an interesting dimension
when discussing imperfect produce specifically. When given circumstances they would be more
likely to purchase imperfect produce, the highest percentage of respondents either agreed or
strongly agreed that they would be more likely to purchase imperfect produce when I am certain
that the produce is safe to eat. As shown in Figure 2, over 72% of respondents chose being
certain of produce safety as the factor that would most likely influence their purchasing
imperfect produce, while only 54% of respondents chose when it is cheaper than conventional
produce.
For the question in which respondents were asked to rank a series of increasingly
blemished apples based on which they would be most likely to purchase, the majority of
respondents chose the perfect apples (Apple 3 on the survey) as their number one choice. The
second choice was the slightly blemished apples, or Apple 1, and the obviously blemished apples
(Apple 2) was ranked last by respondents. Figure 3 shows the percentages of the respondents
rankings.

24

Figure 1: Question 2 Response Percentages

Figure 2: Question 4 Response Percentages

25

Figure 3: Question 3 Ranking Percentages

After the quantitative analysis, I wanted to further explore the disconnect between what I
had found as important to consumers when purchasing produce versus what would persuade
consumers to buy imperfect produce specifically over conventional produce. I coded all of the
free response survey answers and looked at the common themes in respondent answers. Most
answers discussed the consumers wariness of appearances. The highest mentioned codes were
pertaining to aesthetics and bruises, markings, or blemishes specifically. Some other common
aesthetic-related codes were to do with even or vibrant coloring and looking good, healthy, or
perfect.

26

Figure 4: Theme Web

27

Although my research is primarily focused on identifying negative consumer perceptions,

and not perception differences among types of consumers, I did conduct an ANOVA single factor
test with the results among my three respondent pools between online, respondent answers from
conventional grocery store respondents and online respondents were not statistically significant
at an value of 0.05 or 0.1. However, I did find a statistically significant difference in responses
between conventional grocery store responses and those from farmers markets when it comes to
criteria they look for when purchasing produce. The respondents from farmers markets were less
likely to find price and the lack bruises or markings on the produce as important as the
respondents from grocery stores. They were also more likely to find that whether or not produce
is in season and whether or not the produce is from a local farm to be more important than
grocery store consumers.
Despite the difference in responses being statistically significant between grocery store
consumers and farmers market consumers, there is a limitation to the data because the sample
size from the farmers markets was much smaller than the samples from online and grocery
stores.
Demographic information was also collected as part of the surveys although the
researchs aim was not to look at differences across demographics. It is important to note,
however, that the majority of the respondents are female-identified, Caucasian, and between the
ages of 25 and 54 (see Figures 3-6). For the most part, when I looked at differences between
different demographic samples, there were not statistically significant differences in their
responses. However, a few did stand out and will be briefly mentioned, but these differences tend
to be from a subsection of the sample population with a fairly small sample size.

28

The majority of the survey respondents identified as female, as is evident in Figure 4

below. When looking at the differences in responses across gender, I did not find any statistically
significant differences in the responses for questions 2 and 4. However, there was a notable
difference in question 3 where respondents were asked to rank the apples based on willingnessto-purchase. Unlike the results from all respondents where the rankings were close for the
perfect and slightly blemished apples (Apple 3 and 1, respectively), the male-only results
were less so. Instead, the slightly blemished apple, Apple 1, was clearly ranked number 2. Over
90% of respondents chose it as their number 2. Meanwhile, the contention was between Apple 2
and 3, the imperfect and perfect apple. Surprisingly, while over 54% of respondents ranked
the perfect apple as number 1, over 40% also ranked it as number 3. The percentages for the
imperfect apple were similar, but in reverse order.
Likewise, there was an interesting difference in respondent answers when looking at each
age groups responses for question 2 that asked how important certain criteria are when the
respondents are choosing produce to purchase. The older the age group was, the higher the
percentage that found lacking any bruises or markings to be of equal or greater importance to
price. This was not true of the younger age groups, who considered price to be the most
important of the criteria. With the 45-54 years old group, price and lacking any bruises or
markings were equally considered somewhat or very important and a higher percentage of the
subsequent age groups found lacking any bruises or markings to be more important than
price.

29

Figure 5: Gender Demographics

Figure 6: Ethnicity Demographics

30

Figure 7: Age Demographics

Existing Models
The existing models chosen for this study were the most mentioned organizations when
searching imperfect produce or ugly produce. These organizations included, but were not limited
to, the Ugly Fruit and Vegetable Campaign, Imperfect Produce, Cerplus, and The Daily Table.
After researching each organization based on their mission and the rhetoric they use around ugly
produce, I was able to identify four common themes that they are all working within.
1. Selling Imperfect Produce at Discounted Prices
These organizations like Imperfect Produce and the Daily Table serve customers, near
and far, by purchasing the imperfect produce that would otherwise not go to market from local
farmers at highly discounted rates. They are then able to turn a profit, while still offering that

31

produce to customers at discounted rates that are much more favorable to conventional grocery
stores. While these organizations tend to have greater local impact because they sell out of a
single location, some have been able to expand their markets by using a CSA model and offering
food boxes that they can send to customers further away, expanding their reach. Additionally,
these organizations have the potential to pair up with grocery chains to offer that same imperfect
produce in-store, as Whole Foods has done with its pilot project pairing up with Imperfect
Produce in the North Bay.
2. Beautification of Ugly Produce
Efforts to make ugly beautiful are being tackled across the board with all types of
campaigns and organizations in the way that they market imperfect produce. Many of the
organizations feature imperfect produce in an attractive light, in an effort to make it seem more
appealing to consumers. A great example of this can be seen from the Ugly Fruit and Vegetable
Campaign that posts pictures of deformed produce on social media platforms. These posts
typically feature produce that is deformed in a cute way, such an eggplant with an abnormal
growth resembling a nose wearing sunglasses. The campaigns posts also feature fun captions or
hashtags to engage the public.
3. Campaigning to Increase Outlets for Imperfect Produce
There are several websites and social media platforms that are making an effort to engage
the public with the issue of imperfect produce and food waste through campaigning and
petitioning U.S. grocery outlets to offer imperfect produce. There are both stand-alone
campaigns as well as linked campaigns from related businesses and organizations, like with
EndFoodWaste.org.
4. Food Recovery and the Elimination of Food Insecurity and Waste

32

There are specialized organizations throughout the U.S. working in food recovery as an
effort to eliminate food insecurity and food waste, such as the Food Recovery Network and the
local OlyCaps. While they do not work primarily with imperfect produce recovered from
farmers, these organizations occasionally do depending on their proximity to farms, as was
mentioned in one of the farmer interviews. In these cases, the network organizes community
members to participate in the recovery of the imperfect produce that would otherwise be wasted
on farms. After collecting the produce, they typically distribute the gathered produce among
network members and/or distribute it to local food banks or meal programs.

Discussion
Food Safety
Although price was identified by the majority of respondents to be the factor most taken
into consideration when deciding on produce to purchase, only about half of respondents then
said that they would be more likely to purchase imperfect produce if it was cheaper than
conventional produce. Clearly, when talking specifically about imperfect produce, price is no
longer the top concern. Meanwhile, the safety of the produce seems to be of more concern when
dealing with ugly produce, as about 72% of respondents said they would be more willing to
purchase ugly produce if they were certain it was safe to eat.
Consumers concerns of the safety of imperfect produce was even more apparent when
looking at the free response portions of the survey. The words or phrases most commonly
associated with bruising or blemishes were looks like it tastes bad, unhealthy, not safe to
eat, gross, and inedible. The following quotes were pulled from the free response portion
where respondents explained why they ranked the blemished apples last. One respondent wrote,
there are markings on the fruit and I cannot abide any blemishes on my produce. It makes it
33

far less palatable to me. Another wrote, I dont want to eat produce for any reason if it looks
like something is wrong with it. These quotes demonstrate this concern for food safety that
consumers have. They seem to perceive deformities or blemishes on produce as synonymous
with something being inherently wrong with the produce, despite the produce being perfectly
safe. They are worried that because it looks different, the produce might pose a safety concern,
make them sick, or be bad for them in some way.
Only three of all the respondents acknowledged that the opposite is probably true and that
food does not always come out uniform and perfect. If it does, there was probably a lot of human
and/or chemical intervention in the making of that produce and it might, in fact, be more
harmful.

Gender
The difference in data between grocery stores and farmers market is not very
remarkable. Farmers market consumers frequent these markets typically because they are
interested in purchasing local. That desire to be more connected to food, probably also translates
into more education about where their food comes from and the perhaps even growing their own
food, so there would be less concern over blemishes and markings.
The surveys large amount of female-identifying respondents is also not surprising.
Grocery shopping is still typically done by the female head of households. Even the men that
were surveyed, were usually with a female. While the time and type of day that the surveys were
administered might have factored into the gender distribution of survey respondents, it is likely
that females are still doing the majority of household grocery shopping.

34

Age
Age seems like it might be correlated to how important perfect-looking produce is to
the consumer, with the older age groups increasingly finding lack of bruises or markings as
equally or more important than price. However, it is hard to say with certainty, since sizes of
the older age groups became increasingly smaller.
The trend could also be attributed to a difference in education about food and where food
comes from. As one farmer discussed in the interview, at the end of World War II, the food
system shifted with the introduction of chemical herbicides and pesticides into agricultural
production. This led to consumers expecting a certain level of perfection from their food.
Contrastingly, in the last decade or so, children have become more exposed to the food system as
p-patches and school or community gardens have increased in popularity. This could explain
some of the response differences between older and younger age groups.
An additional factor could also be that younger age groups find price to be more
important because they are still establishing themselves and trying to live more frugally
compared to older age groups. As consumers become more established and have greater
available funds, price may no longer be a top concern.

Existing Models & Recommendations

Of the existing models, none seem to be addressing the top concern of consumers
surrounding imperfect produce, which is food safety. There are already existing organizations
addressing price by selling ugly produce at a discount, although they are limited. However, none
even broach the issue of ugly produce being safe to eat and based on the amount of consumers
who said they would purchase imperfect produce if they were certain of its safety, this area of
concern cannot be ignored.

35

Much like how many different types of organizations and campaigns address making the
ugly beautiful simultaneously with their respective missions, food safety concerns could be
addressed in a similar way. In promotional photos depicting ugly produce in a favorable light,
these organizations could easily get the message of safety across as well by simply showing
others consuming said produce, especially children. The imagery of others eating
unconventional-looking produce gets the message out that others are eating it, and therefore it
must be safe to eat. Of all the existing models I looked at, the Ugly Fruits and Vegetable
Campaign could most easily and effectively address food safety concerns with their existing
social media platforms. In addition to getting consumers to rethink ugly, they can reinforce the
idea that ugly does not mean unhealthy or unsafe with short and to the point captions.

Limitations
While this study did shed light on some important factors that could be barring
consumers from purchasing imperfect produce, it is necessary to address the limitation of the
study. Due to time and geographical constraints, there are quite a few limitations on this studys
data. The study focused specifically on using Seattle consumers as a case study out of ease of
access. However, Seattle is not representative of the entire U.S. in terms of demographic
makeup, education level, and overall knowledge of the food system and food waste. These
factors could have a significant effect on the results of the study.
Additionally, because of time and ease of access, the study only drew on consumers from
certain areas within Seattle, who might not represent Seattle as a whole. The sample size of this
study was only 218 respondents. While it is a decent sample, it is still relatively small when
considering Seattles urban population size of over three million people. Despite all of the

36

studys limitations, the results are a step forward to understanding consumer relationships with
imperfect produce, which is an area of study where very little is currently known.

Conclusion
As discussed earlier, other developed countries have already identified the contribution
that imperfect produce can have to food waste and have begun selling it in conventional grocery
stores. Meanwhile, the United States is lagging behind these other counties when it comes to
available outlets for ugly produce. There is obviously a gap in what the movement here in the
United States is centered around and what consumers are actually concerned about when
purchasing imperfect produce. The work of this study begins to contextualize the ugly produce
movement currently happening in the United States and tries to understand what barriers are
preventing American consumers from fully getting behind the movement.
By addressing the issue of food safety in campaigns or with organizations that have
nationwide visibility and with consumers recognizing that ugly does not mean unhealthy or
unsafe, there is greater opportunity to get more consumers on board with imperfect produce. The
more consumers learn to accept imperfections in their produce, the more outlets will begin to
open up to help absorb the sheer amount being produced. Even though imperfect produce is only
a small part of the larger systemic problem of food waste in the United States, an important step
toward solving the problem can be made by eliminating imperfect produces contribution to it.

37

Appendix I.

38

39

40

41

Works Cited
Bagherzadeh, Morvarid, Mitsuhiro Inamura, and Hyunchul Jeong. 2014. "Food Waste Along the
Food Chain." OECD Food, Agriculture and Fisheries Paper (OECD Publishing).
Bunn, David, Gail W Feenstra, Lori Lynch, and Robert Sommer. 1990. "Consumer Acceptance
of Cosmetically Imperfect Produce." Journal of Consumer Affairs (Jouir) 24 (2): 268279.
FAO. 2013. Food wastage footprint: Impacts on natural resources. Natural Resources
Management and Environment Department, FAO, 1-61.
Fjeld, Carla R., and Robert Sommer. 1982. "Regionalseasonal patterns in produce consumption
at farmers markets and supermarkets." Ecology of Food and Nutrition 12 (2): 109-115.
Geiling, Natasha. 2015. "Selling Ugly Fruits And Vegetables Could Be Key To Solving
Americas Food Waste Problem." Think Progress. August 19.
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/08/19/3692594/ugly-fruit-and-vegetable-foodwaste-campaign/.
Hall, Kevin, Juen Guo, Michael Dore, and Carson Chow. 2009. "The Progressive Increase of
Food Waste in America and Its Environmental Impact." PLoS ONE 4 (11): e7940.
Kader, A.A. 2005. "Increasing Food Availability by Reducing Postharvest Losses of Fresh
Produce ." Acta Horticulturae 2169-2175.
Kantor, Linda Scott, Kathryn Lipton, Alden Manchester, and Victor Oliveira. 1997. "Estimating
and Addressing Americas Food Losses." Food Review 20: 2-12.
Kummu, Matti, H de Moel, M Porkka, S Siebert, O Varis, and Ward P.J. 2012. "Lost food,
wasted resources: Global food supply chain losses and their impacts on freshwater,
cropland, and fertiliser use." Science of the Total Environment 438: 477-489.
Munesue, Yosuke. 2014. "The effects of reducing food losses and food waste on global food
insecurity, natural resources, and greenhouse gas emissions." Environ Econ Policy Stud
17: 43-77.
National Resources Defense Council. 2013. Left-Out An Investigation of the Causes &
Quantities of Crop Shrink. NRDC, National Resources Defense Council.
Parfitt, Julian, Mark Barthel, and Sarah Macnaughton. 2010. "Food waste within food supply
chains: quantification and potential for change to 2050." Philosophical Transactions of
the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 35 (1554): 3065-3081.
Rutten, Martine M. 2013. "What economic theory tells us about the impacts of reducing food
losses and/or waste: implications for research, policy and practice." Agriculture & Food
Security 2 (13): 1-13.
Stancu, Violeta, Pernille Haugaard, and Liisa Lahteenmaki. 2015. "Determinants of consumer
food waste behaviour: Two routes to food waste." Appetite 96 (2016): 7-17.
Ta'afaki, Jane. 2015. "Insights in Public Health: Food Waste in Hawaii: A Global Problem
Manifested Locally." Hawai'i Journal of Medicine and Public Health 74 (9): 315-318.
Tobin, Daniel, Joan Thomson, and Luke LaBorde. 2012. "Consumer perceptions of produce
safety: A study of Pennsylvania." Food Control 26 (2): 305-312.
Tsui, Bonnie. 2014. "Getting Over Our Preference For Perfect Produce." Newsweek Global, 1-5.
http://www.newsweek.com/2014/05/02/our-preference-perfect-produce-making-us-sick248213.html.
Wall Street Journal. 2010. "Throwing Away our Food." October 16.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748703440004575548391291973152.
42

Weng, Yen-Chu. 2015. "Contrasting visions of science in ecological restoration: Expert-lay

dynamics between professional practitioners and volunteers." Geoforum (Elsevier) 65:
134-145.

43