The economic implications of food waste in Australia are substantial, with an estimated $36.6 billion lost annually. A significant portion of fresh produce is discarded at the farm gate due to cosmetic imperfections, including appearance, size, or ripeness.
This issue has long been recognized, leading to the emergence of the "ugly" food movement. In various regions, such produce is rebranded: "wonky" in the UK, "inglorious" in France, "naturally imperfect" in Canada, and "odd bunch" in Australia.
While these campaigns have addressed some challenges, a new marketing hurdle arises in promoting climate-affected produce. This category includes produce impacted by extreme or moderate weather events, such as droughts, which are expected to increase in frequency due to climate change.
Climate-affected produce often shares visual imperfections with "ugly" food but may differ in taste and texture. For instance, drought conditions can result in sweeter, more granular apples, hotter chilies, and more pungent onions. Despite these changes, such produce remains edible under mild or moderate drought conditions.
Research indicates that consumers often avoid climate-affected produce unless offered at a discount. Marketing strategies that emphasize the "resilience" of these products could potentially boost consumer acceptance.
In our study, two discrete choice experiments were conducted with Australian consumers. Participants evaluated eight apple options, each described by attributes like firmness, sweetness, appearance, and size, along with price and sales venue. Climate-affected apples were labeled with a "resilience" message: "Resilient apple – survived the drought."
The study aimed to assess how organoleptic properties and consumer empathy towards farmers influence the choice of climate-affected produce and the price consumers are willing to pay.
Results showed that when firmness, size, and aesthetics were prioritized, and empathy towards farmers was low, consumers avoided climate-affected produce, opting for higher-priced unaffected alternatives. This could pose challenges if farmers cannot repurpose such produce into other products.
Conversely, when price was a key factor, consumers opted for climate-affected produce at discounted rates. However, this expectation for lower prices might disadvantage farmers and reduce the perceived value of climate-affected produce.
Importantly, when the "resilience" message resonated, consumers were more inclined to consider climate-affected apples, even with low empathy towards farmers. This suggests that resilience-focused marketing could be effective.
The research team is further exploring resilience messaging to encourage the purchase of climate-affected produce. With extreme weather events likely to persist, there is a need for discussions on accepting the different tastes and textures of such produce.
Source: The Conversation