Demand for “perfect” fruit and vegetables from commercial buyers is leading to huge food waste, and diminished financial returns for farmers, a new report has found.
The appearance of fruit and vegetables is the most common reason commercial buyers reject produce, outweighing other factors such as ripeness or evidence of pest infestation, according to farmers.
According to the report, commissioned by odd-but-edible food merchant Good and Fugly, growers also say that some rejected produce is given to supermarkets for free.
“We can see through these answers that, simply put, there’s a lot of produce that is being rejected by supermarkets purely for the way it looks and it’s dramatically impacting farmers’ profits,” said Richard Tourino, co-founder of Good and Fugly.
Tourino said there was a need to change consumers’ minds over what good produce looks like.
“The reason people choose that perfectly round tomato is because they’re walking around with that prototype in their head because of all the advertising of perfect produce,” he said.
“We’re trying to work out how we encourage people to change that prototype.”
The ugly – or imperfect – food movement is gathering momentum around the world, as food merchants seek to change our perceptions of what constitutes edible produce.
According to the report’s findings, almost 14m kgs of fruit and vegetables are lost annually in Australia due to rejected produce, some of which rots on farms as there are limited options for sale.
About 2,600 gigalitres of water is used to grow food that isn’t consumed, according to government figures, and there is significant land used along with emissions generated – for no benefit.
The report, based on a survey of 57 farmers by research house Fifth Quadrant, also found that one-in-five farmers say rejected produce is given to supermarkets for free.
One in 10 farmers reported an annual loss of $50,000 or more as a result of rejected produce.
Australia’s dominant supermarkets, Coles and Woolworths, have imperfect ranges, although they represent a small fraction of overall sales. Harris Farm also has an extensive offering.
A Woolworths spokesperson said produce requirements were adaptable and that they respond to the quantity and availability of fruit and vegetables in the market.
“This allows us to work with growers to meet customer demand, while also reducing food waste from unsold fruit and veg in our stores – and avoiding unnecessary food miles and emissions associated with transporting it,” the spokesperson said.
“If produce doesn’t meet our expectations, the supplier will maintain ownership of it and may elect to collect it so they can sell it in other markets, or to have it donated to food rescue.”
after newsletter promotion
Coles was contacted for comment.
The report included reports from farmers that whole pallets were rejected because of “one bad apple”.
Supermarkets argue that they have no incentive to unnecessarily reject produce after delivery, due to its impact on supply volumes.
There is a debate in the industry over who is to blame for a customer’s desire for perfectly shaped and unblemished produce that has created such waste.
Food retailers point out that consumers will reach for good-looking produce over something that has an impurity, even if it is solely cosmetic, while others believe major retailers have conditioned shoppers.
The report, which investigates the relationship between Australian farmers and supermarkets, found that half of the farmers surveyed screen out “good” produce because they don’t think it will be accepted by commercial buyers due to aesthetics.
This is in addition to rejected produce, defined as produce that is ordered but not accepted.
Good and Fugly co-founder Jonathan Englert said he’d heard delightful stories of attitudes changing, with shoppers on the look-out for the most outrageous looking produce.
“We hear back from parents who tell us their kids are looking for a really crazy cucumber or strawberry to show friends at school,” Englert said.
“Our goal is for supermarkets to just get rid of the aesthetic and size standards.
“It would be a huge victory.”
