While I was at Superstore the other day, I noticed something peculiar. One 15lb bag of potatoes was $5.99, another 15lb bag of the same type of potatoes was $2.99. The difference? The first option offered perfectly round, unblemished potatoes whereas the second option was No Name’s “Naturally Imperfect” potatoes. The “naturally imperfect” potatoes had very minor blemishes and varied in shape and sizes. Potatoes are potatoes, right?
Avoidable Food Waste
The unfortunate reality is that consumers tend to reject ugly produce as they perceive it as lower quality and less tasty. Stemming from consumers’ expectations for perfection, I was shocked to learn that 30% of crops in the U.S are discarded just because they do not meet the beauty standards of produce. In Canada, 10% of the $31 billion of wasted food annually is from rejected produce. It is incredibly ironic and disheartening that while perfectly edible produce is being discarded for being ‘ugly’, over 800 million people worldwide are undernourished according to the UN.
A Solution
On a brighter note, there are increasingly more efforts from businesses to encourage the consumption of imperfect produce to ultimately help reduce food waste. One example is No Name’s Naturally Imperfect produce line. Their key message focuses on how produce naturally comes in all shapes and sizes and that minor blemishes do not affect the taste and quality of the product. What is interesting is that Superstore offers these Naturally Imperfect alternatives at a significantly cheaper price than “normal” produce, further encouraging consumers to adopt imperfect produce.
An interesting study from UBC Sauder has actually found that labeling wonky produce “ugly” can increase the likelihood of consumers buying them. By explicitly labeling the product, this signals to consumers that the only difference between the ugly produce and conventionally perfect produce is how it looks. Relating it back to class content, the effort to embrace “ugly” produce and diverting food waste addresses the UN’s second SDG of zero hunger.
While I hope for a future where there is no differentiation between produce, in the meantime, there is a promising market for “ugly” produce that targets price-sensitive consumers and those concerned about food waste. I believe that we as consumers need to shift our expectations of perfection to increase the adoption of “ugly produce”. Potato, Potahto, right?
larryxc
March 26, 2023 — 11:13 pm
Hi Cherry,
This is such an interesting topic to be discussing, especially with the ongoing calls for more aid for food insecurity in university students across not only Canada but globally. I recently worked as a Marketing Intern at Peko Produce, a social enterprise that tackles the food waste issue with redistributing these “ugly/misshapen” and also over-ripe produce. The biggest issue that we had was the fact that our suppliers shifted from these ugly produce options to more over purchased items. This meant that a lot of produce was on the verge of spoilage each week. I’m curious as to your thoughts on the ugly produce situation, as it seems like Loblaws is leaning into this concept of ugly produce as another way to subconsciously market their product offerings compared to really being dedicated to the issue.
alejeune
April 9, 2023 — 4:53 pm
This is such an essential topic to be talking about especially in UBC’s current climate of food insecurity. As an exchange student, I was shocked to learn how big of a problem this is, especially since it is happening at one of the best universities in the country. Furthermore, I knew companies did not sell blemished products but to learn that that it represents 30% of crops in the US is truly disheartening especially when there are still so many people in the world going hungry. I wonder where this need for a perfect look in food came from, if it was the consumers or the companies that started it or if it was a bit of both… Since people are expecting perfection, I found it surprising that they would be more willing to buy these “imperfect” product when labelled ugly. But then again, ugly show that it is the look of the food which is imperfect and not how it tastes or its quality.
Zachary Goldthorpe
April 17, 2023 — 12:15 am
This is a very interesting blog post Cherry! It’s so interesting to know that despite “ugly” produce not being as attractive as standardized produce, labeling it as such results in the opposite effect. Growing up in Vancouver, I always remember going to farmer’s markets and seeing stalls dedicated to this cause and everyone lined up around the block to see the oddly-shaped tomatoes, potatoes, carrots, peppers, and more. A friend of mine started a business called Peko Produce, which addresses this very issue by selling boxes of “rejected produce” for cheaper. I’m curious if you believe the future is continuing to separate “ugly” produce and price discriminate for cheaper, or simply lump it with more proper-looking produce instead.