Read the label: `Ugly' produce popular with consumers
When it comes to blemished or misshapen produce, it pays to call a spade a spade.
New research from the University of B.C. found that labelling wonky fruits and vegetables “ugly” made consumers more likely to buy them. That's because the candid labelling indicates the only thing that sets imperfect produce apart is esthetics, said Siddhanth Mookerjee, a UBC Sauder PhD student and co-author of From Waste to Taste: How `Ugly' Labels Can Increase Purchase of Unattractive Produce.
“The `ugly' labelling points to the source of the rejection and emphasizes the esthetic flaw,” Mookerjee said in a phone interview. “You're effectively de-biasing the consumer. You're making them aware they are making appearance a basis for judgment and people are like, `Wait, I shouldn't do that.'”
Consumers tend to reject unattractive produce because they think it's less tasty or nutritious. But this leads to immense food waste.
In the U.S., farmers throw out up to 30 per cent of their crops annually, or 60 million tonnes of food, because they failed to meet beauty standards. American retailers also dumped more than $15 billion in edible produce a year.
In Canada, rejected produce is estimated to be responsible for 10 per cent of the $31 billion of wasted food each year.
In recent years, there's been a push to promote ugly produce, describing it as “imperfect” or “produce with personality.”
But while that may seem less judgmental, it's also less effective, said the study, which was co-authored with UBC Sauder professors Yann Cornil and JoAndrea Hoegg, and will be published in the Journal of Marketing.
“It's important for the label to emphasize the esthetic flaw,” Mookerjee said, noting the term “misshapen” also works well because it's highlighting the physical shortcoming of the produce. “`Imperfect' is more ambiguous — you don't know what's `imperfect.'”
The researchers conducted seven lab and field sites, including at a farmer's market where they sold attractive tomatoes and potatoes, and their unattractive versions at a 25 per cent discount. They found that the “ugly” label made consumers more likely to buy the misshapen produce, and increased the amount they're willing to spend on them.
Mookerjee said he hopes the study would encourage retailers and farmers to sell unattractive produce instead of dumping them, and feel confident there's a market for them. Ugly produce often is sold at a discount, but it's still profitable for sellers as it's cheaper for them to purchase imperfect produce.
`Ugly' labelling points to the source of the rejection and emphasizes the esthetic flaw. You're effectively de-biasing the consumer.
“It's a win-win solution,” he said. “It can help reduce food waste by selling unattractive produce, and it's not guaranteed, of course, but it is possible to make a profit out of it.”
But Mookerjee cautioned against discounting the ugly produce too much. If the discount is, say, 60 per cent rather than 20 per cent , consumers are more likely turned off because they associate the cheaper price with lower quality.
In Vancouver, online grocer Spud offers “imperfect” organic produce such as bananas, potatoes, carrots and apples. Loblaw's No Name Naturally Imperfect line, which was launched in 2015 in Quebec and Ontario, has since been cancelled.