An Exploration of Appearance-Driven Fruit and Vegetable Waste Through the Eyes of Children: a Consumer

UNIVERSITY OF OTAGO

Otago Business School

Department of Marketing

AN EXPLORATION OF APPEARANCE-DRIVEN FRUIT AND VEGETABLE WASTE THROUGH THE EYES OF CHILDREN: A CONSUMER

SOCIALISATION PERSPECTIVE

Annesha Bernadette Makhal

A thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Marketing

FEBRUARY 2020

Abstract

“We need to find the beauty inside these vegetables, and not only on the outside.”

―Dana Cowin, Food & Wine Editor-In-Chief

Food waste is a global issue with negative social, economic, and environmental consequences. Of all the food categories, fruits and vegetables comprise the largest share of global foodstuffs waste. A major cause of this waste is consumers’ unwillingness to purchase and consume produce that look atypical, or suboptimal. In this thesis, fresh fruits and vegetables that deviate in appearance from what is considered normal, are called ‘suboptimal’. The suboptimal foods literature has tended to focus on adult consumers’ perceptions and behaviours towards suboptimal produce, with a dearth of research that has explored this context from the young consumer’s perspective. Understanding these behaviours from the perspectives of children, is not just a novel perspective for understanding consumer behaviour towards suboptimal produce waste, but also provides an opportunity to understand how these perceptions are socialised. The young consumer segment comprises of children characterised by their concerns for global sustainability issues and willingness to participate in consumer activism to voice their concerns for environmental degradation; hence their voices are increasingly being heard and taken into consideration by both industry and policy makers. The overall objective of this thesis is to explore suboptimal produce consumption, purchase, and preference from the perspectives of children, thereby also casting light on how these preferences are socialised. To do so, a two-step methodological approach involving a mock shopping activity and focus group discussions with 97 children aged between 5 and 11 was undertaken. The first step was a shopping activity which was used to directly observe how fruit and vegetable choices are made. This was followed by focus group discussions which asked children about their preference between a suboptimal and optimal fruit or vegetable; their previous exposure to atypical fruit and vegetables; and their knowledge and awareness about suboptimal produce waste and waste reduction initiatives. Thereafter an inductive thematic analysis was used to analyse the data and derive themes which have been reported across the three papers which form the results section of this thesis.

In line with the global target to halve per capita food waste by 2030 (Target 12.3 of the 12th Sustainable Development Goal), retailers worldwide have initiated selling suboptimal produce in supermarkets. The retailing strategy to market suboptimal produce includes using imagery that may appeal to children, however there is a dearth of research that has studied how children perceive suboptimal produce. Hence, the first paper (chapter 3) explored how children perceive the edibility of suboptimal fruits and vegetables with respect to different types of appearance defects, namely shape, size and colour defects, and blemish levels. This study found that children are largely accepting of suboptimal produce. Specifically, defects in shape, size, and certain colour defects were positively perceived, whilst blemishes and brown discolorations were negatively perceived. Overall, in comparison to the past literature on how (adult) consumers perceive suboptimal produce, children were more accepting of most appearance defects. Hence, the findings of this study have implications for retailers selling suboptimal produce, who could potentially market suboptimal produce to children as they are accepting of most types of appearance-defects in fruits and vegetables. Academically, this paper revealed the nuances of consumer edibility perceptions with respect to different types of appearance defects. Furthermore, the findings revealed that children’s edibility perceptions were linked to familiarity, a product of one’s food socialisations, which informed the objective of the second study which was to explore how appearance-preferences for fresh fruits and vegetables are socialised.

Although research suggests the possibility of consumers’ rejection of suboptimal produce being socialised, empirical research that has explored these socialisations is lacking. Understanding these socialisations provides useful insight into how suboptimal produce purchase, consumption, and use could be normalised. Hence, the second paper (chapter 4) explored the underlying socialisations that lead to either the acceptance or rejection of suboptimal produce. Four factors were identified as socialising factors that lead to the acceptance of suboptimal produce. These include growing fruits and vegetables at home, repurposing suboptimal produce, learning about food waste, and produce choice autonomy. These factors familiarise and normalise seeing, using, and consuming suboptimal produce. These socialisations also empower children to challenge the existing appearance-based prejudices against suboptimal produce, and likewise make volitional choices favouring suboptimal produce over the regular optimal produce. Alternatively, the factors that contribute to the rejection of suboptimal produce are driven by children’s observations of parents’ produce choice behaviours in-store, and parental/family norms about how fruits and

ii vegetables should be chosen, prepared, and consumed. These observations and subsequent practice of family norms convey desirable produce appearance preferences, which are learnt and replicated. Overall, this study provides implications for public policy that is working towards normalising suboptimal produce. It provides a novel perspective to suboptimal produce preference or rejection by exploring the phenomenon through the consumer socialisation lens.

The third paper (chapter 5), presents suggestions for retailers to consider in light of preventing suboptimal produce devaluation and waste through children’s own voices. The findings highlight that the current marketing strategies retailers employ for selling suboptimal produce differentiates and devalues produce on the basis of appearance. Hence alternative strategies, such as relaxing appearance standards and allowing shelf space for produce with extreme appearance deformities, and using non-discriminatory branding, product placement, messaging and pricing strategies were suggested. Additionally, strategies to prevent suboptimal produce waste were suggested. These include targeted marketing of suboptimal produce to children and redistributing suboptimal produce to children through the existing ‘Free Fruit for Kids’ channel; encouraging suboptimal produce choice in-store by using facts to spread awareness about suboptimal produce waste and gamifying the purchase and consumption of suboptimal produce; and donating unsold suboptimal produce to poor local communities. These recommendations not only show how suboptimal produce devaluation and waste could be minimised, but also opens new frontiers for suboptimal produce retailing strategies.

In sum, this thesis makes a number of academic and applied contributions. It is the first body of work that has explored consumer behaviour towards suboptimal produce from a young consumer’s perspective. It is also the first to have examined and compared children’s perceptions about all the major appearance defects in fresh produce to report how these perceptions differ across varying appearance defects. As a result, the implications of this research are more specific to different types of appearance defects. It has applied the consumer socialisation theory to identify the socialisations that form these perceptions towards suboptimal produce, thereby advancing the suboptimal produce waste literature by understanding consumer perceptions through a sociological lens. Alternatively, it has contributed to the consumer socialisation literature by showing how various food-related social practices (e.g., growing produce, repurposing suboptimal produce, grocery shopping etc.) influence consumer perception and valuation of suboptimal produce. In practice, the

iii findings from the three papers largely inform retailing practices for marketing and selling suboptimal produce. The research also influences how policy makers could implement normalisation strategies for increasing the acceptance of suboptimal produce. These suggestions are useful for organisations working with the United Nations to meet their food waste reduction targets and goals, thereby enhancing the value of food whilst also achieving greater food sustainability in the long-run.

Acknowledgements

This PhD has been one of the best life experiences full of fond memories that I will always look back with pride and joy. I have been extremely lucky to have many supportive people who have played an important role in my PhD journey.

Firstly, I would thank my supervisors Kirsten, Maree, and Miranda for their constant encouragement and support, for being extremely generous with their time, for always having their door open, for teaching me how to think in an academically cogent way, and for being the best supervisory team one can ask for. Kirsten, thank you for your immeasurable support and patience through every step of the PhD. You have always believed in and encouraged me even when I have doubted myself. Maree, I am extremely grateful for all the invaluable input and feedback. All of it has had a major influence in the direction this research has taken. Miranda, my food waste journey began because of you! Thank you for inspiring and convincing me to take this up, for sharing your expertise, and for being an irreplaceable part of the team. I am looking forward to working with all of you in the future.

Secondly, I would also like to thank the reviewers of the Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services for their constructive feedback for the research presented in chapter 3 (paper 1) of this thesis. To my colleagues in the Business School and the Department of Marketing, thank you for supporting and being a part of my journey in every way. Especially Rob, thank you for all the support. Sarah, Joanne, Janette, and Moira – thank you for all the admin help. To my office mates, Balkrushna, Jamal, Shoaib, Sabeeh, Neda, Parham and Mohamed, thank you for being around and for sharing many laughs. For other friends in the Marketing Department and the Food Science Department, Katy, Shabnam, Donya, Khai, Arezoo, Kamal, Mehran, Khaled and Hajar, I’m grateful that you have been part of this journey.

And finally, but certainly not the least, my family – my mother, father, and little brother Angus – thank you for supporting my dreams and never saying no. Lastly, to Rahul – this goes without saying, but still thank you for everything!

Table of Contents Abstract i Acknowledgements v List Tables viii List of Figures viii List of Publications ix Chapter 1: Introduction & Literature Review 1 1.1. Background: The food landscape 1 1.2. Food waste 3 1.2.1. Definitions 4 1.2.2. Fruit and Vegetable waste 6 1.3. Suboptimal food waste 9 1.3.1. Suboptimal fruit and vegetables 10 1.3.2. Private standards: Retailer-set aesthetic standards for fresh 11 fruits and vegetables 1.3.3. Consumers acceptance of suboptimal produce 13 1.4. Consumer socialisations 21 1.4.1. Young Consumers 23 1.5. Research questions 25 1.6. Structure of the thesis 26 1.7. Contribution 27 Chapter 2: Methodology 30 2.1. Overview 30 2.2. Introduction 30 2.3. Research Paradigm 31 2.4. Research Design 33 Chapter 3: Paper 1 36 Abstract 36 3.1. Introduction 36 3.1.1. Consumer perceptions of appearance cues in suboptimal fruits 38 and vegetables 3.1.2. Suboptimal foods in supermarkets 39 3.1.3. Retailers and children 40 3.2. Materials and Methods 41 3.2.1. Study Design 41 3.2.2. Participants 41 3.2.3. Stimuli 42 3.2.4. Procedure 43 3.2.5. Coding 44 3.3. Results 46 3.3.1. Shape perceptions 46 3.3.2. Colour perceptions 48 3.3.3. Blemish perceptions 49 3.3.4. Size perceptions 50 3.4. Discussion 51 3.5. Implications 54 3.6. Conclusion 55

Chapter 4: Paper 2 57 Abstract 57 4.1. Background 57 4.2. Food Socialisations 59 4.3. Methodology 62 4.3.1. Sample and Stimuli 62 4.3.2. Procedure 63 4.3.3. Data Analysis 64 4.4. Results and Discussion 64 4.4.1. Socialisations that contribute towards the acceptance of 64 suboptimal produce 4.4.1.1. Growing produce at home 65 4.4.1.2. Repurposing suboptimal produce 67 4.4.1.3. Allowing choice autonomy 69 4.4.1.4. Learning about food waste 69 4.4.2. Socialisations that contribute to the rejection of suboptimal 72 produce 4.4.2.1. Observations of parents’ produce choice behaviour in- 73 store 4.4.2.2. Parental norms conveyed through instructions for 73 procuring, preparing, and consuming suboptimal produce 4.5. Conclusions 75 Chapter 5: Paper 3 79 Abstract 79 5.1. Introduction 79 5.2. Literature Review 81 5.2.1. Food Sustainability through reducing suboptimal produce waste 81 5.2.2. Retailer-led strategies to encourage the purchase of suboptimal 82 produce 5.2.3. Consumer perceptions of suboptimal produce 83 5.2.4. Children as consumer-citizens and drivers of change 84 5.3. Materials and Methods 86 5.3.1. Sample 86 5.3.2. Stimuli 86 5.3.3. Procedure 88 5.4. Results 89 5.4.1. Theme 1: Prevent suboptimal produce devaluation 91 5.4.1.1. Lowering cosmetic standards for fresh fruits and 91 vegetables 5.4.1.2. Suboptimal produce should not be separated from 92 optimal produce 5.4.1.3. Branding and pricing suboptimal produce 93 5.4.2. Theme 2: Marketing and Distribution Strategies for selling 93 suboptimal produce 5.4.2.1. Children as a potential market for suboptimal produce 93 5.4.2.2. Redistribute through the existing “Free Fruit for Kids” 94 channel in-store 5.4.2.3. Sell suboptimal produce with extreme appearance defects 95

vii

5.4.2.4. Encouraging adult consumers to buy and consume 95 suboptimal produce 5.4.2.5. Donating suboptimal produce to the poor 96 5.5. Discussions and conclusions 98 Chapter 6: Concluding Discussions 103 References 109 Appendices 130 Appendix A (I): Ethics Form 131 Appendix A (II): Ethics Amendment Form 148 Appendix B: Information Sheet for Parents 154 Appendix C: Consent Form for Parents 158 Appendix D: Information Sheet for Children 161 Appendix E: Consent Form for Children 163 Appendix F: Media Releases 165

List of Tables Table 1: Consumer research on suboptimal produce organised by year of 15 publication Table 2: Socio-demographic characteristics of the participants 42 Table 3: Age groups used for data collection 44 Table 4: Table of themes (Paper 1) 45 Table 5: Overview of themes (Paper 3) 89

List of Figures Figure 1: General Structure of the Thesis 27 Figure 2: Suboptimal fruits and vegetables used for the focus group discussions 63 (Clockwise from left to right - carrot, pear, banana, and apple Figure 3: Thematic representation of the socialisations that contribute towards the 65 acceptance of suboptimal produce Figure 4: Thematic representation of the socialisations that contribute towards the 72 rejection of suboptimal produce Figure 5: The "Odd Bunch" campaign by the New Zealand supermarket 88 Countdown and a suboptimal (forked) carrot used as stimuli during focus group discussions

viii

List of Publications

Paper Publication status “I don’t like wonky carrots”: An exploration Published in the Journal of Retailing and of children’s perceptions of suboptimal Consumer Services fruits and vegetables Normalising the ‘ugly’ to reduce food Under review in the Journal of Consumer waste: Exploring the socialisations that form Behaviour appearance preferences for fresh fruits and vegetables Reducing suboptimal produce waste and To be submitted to the Journal of Retailing devaluation: Insights from young consumers and Consumer Services Understanding the socialisation of Abstract published as conference appearance-based preferences for fresh fruit proceedings at the International Food and vegetables Marketing Research Symposium

Chapter 1: Introduction & Literature Review

This chapter combines an introduction to the thesis and the literature that informed this research. Combining the introduction and literature review helped mitigate some of the inadvertent repetitions across the chapters owing to the thesis-by-papers structure. The literature review begins with the importance of studying food waste for addressing the social and environmental problems of the food supply chain (Section 1.1). The food waste problem is discussed in depth with a focus on fruit and vegetable waste (1.2). This is followed by a discussion on the suboptimal food waste literature (1.3). Lastly, drawing on food socialisations, this chapter shows the importance of studying suboptimal food waste through the eyes of children (1.4), highlights the gap in the literature, and presents the research questions (1.5) which will be answered in the subsequent chapters (Chapters 3, 4, and 5). The chapter ends with an overview of the structure of the thesis detailing what is expected from each chapter, and the concluding section on the contribution of the thesis.

1.1. Background: The food landscape The food industry has witnessed multiple changes over time. From the supply-side, food availability has significantly increased over the decades because of newer food production methods that are less reliant on seasons and more reliant on globalised food supply chains (Kearney, 2010; O'Brien, 2008). As a result, since the World War II rationing period (i.e., 1945 onwards), per capita food availability has grown by almost 40 per cent (Osborn, 2016). The growth in food supply has been complemented with a decrease in food prices and an increase in disposable incomes, thereby leading to an increase in the demand for food (Kearney, 2010). The concurrent growth in the demand and supply for food is placing unsurmountable pressure on the agriculture sector to not only provide more food, but to do so in a manner that is socio-environmentally sustainable (Foley, 2011; Foley et al., 2011; Godfray & Garnett, 2014).

The current land use for agriculture has already exceeded the available arable land by 33%, but this percentage is fast increasing as more land is being cleared for agricultural production due to the increasing demand for food (FAO, 2003). Environmentally, agriculture is extremely resource intensive (Göbel, Langen, Blumenthal, Teitscheid, & Ritter, 2015) and the largest contributor to environmental pollution and climate change because it interrupts the natural phosphorus and nitrogen cycles (Foley et al., 2005). It has also been held responsible

1 for depleting the earth’s natural resources far beyond its limits (Steffen et al., 2015). Likewise, fresh water resources are being depleted as agriculture accounts for the highest human use of water (Lundqvist, Charlotte, & Molden, 2008). Further, agriculture contributes towards a third of the world’s greenhouse gas production (Garnett, 2011), an amount which surpasses that from transport and is similar to that from industry (McMichael, Powles, Butler, & Uauy, 2007). Eutrophication, desertification, and biodiversity loss are added burdens of agricultural practices (Nellemann et al., 2009; Pretty, Ball, Lang, & Morison, 2005). These concerns around food production bear consequences for many agrarian economies such as New Zealand.

A shift in consumer demand from seasonal and local to non-seasonal and imported produce calls for more food processing, which invariably uses more resources and energy to bring food to households (Gjerris & Gaiani, 2013). Despite the inherent environmental problems modern agriculture entails, almost 800 million people, or one in nine people in the world, still suffer from chronic hunger (FAO, IFAD, & WFP, 2014; Godfray et al., 2010). It is estimated that with the growing population and increasing purchasing power of the middle- class, food demand is likely to increase by 50-70 per cent by 2050 (Godfray et al., 2010; Parfitt, Barthel, & Macnaughton, 2010). This goes to show that modern agricultural practices are environmentally and socially unsustainable and the costs incurred in producing food are far greater than the benefits reaped (Foley, 2011; Foley et al., 2011). As the United Nations (2015b) projects the world population to reach 9.7 billion by 2050, it is a challenge and responsibility to not only feed the growing population, but in a manner that is environmentally sustainable (Foley et al., 2011; Wheeler & von Braun, 2013).

Despite these socio-environmental issues surrounding food production, food availability continues to grow and is argued to have contributed to the culture of food devaluation and waste (Evans, Campbell, & Murcott, 2013). O'Brien (2008, 2013) calls modern societies ‘rubbish societies’ where food production has increased without food consumption being a reference; implying that excess food (fit for human consumption) is inevitably diverted to the landfill or converted to animal feed indicating a suboptimal use of the food produced for human consumption. Paradoxically, we are faced with the co-existing problems of overconsumption and obesity, and malnutrition and food insecurity (Block et al., 2011; Porpino, Wansink, & Parente, 2016; Reisch, Eberle, & Lorek, 2013), which have moved the public to question the existing policies around food production and provision (Bloom, 2011; Stuart, 2009b). Therefore, it has become important to consider the

2 sustainability of our food supply chains, through every stage from food production to food consumption (O'Kane, 2016; Reisch et al., 2013). Today, an observable symptom of such unsustainable food supply chains is food waste (Aschemann-Witzel, 2016). Wasted food (in landfills) is not only one of the most prominent producers of greenhouse gas emissions (Rockström et al., 2009), but also indicates lost food that could have fed empty stomachs (Ehrlich & Harte, 2015; Godfray et al., 2010).

1.2. Food waste In 2015, the United Nations reformulated their Sustainable Development Goals (SDG), aimed towards ending poverty, promoting prosperity and people’s well-being while protecting the environment by 2030 (United Nations, 2015a; p.5). Goal 12 of the SDG is to ensure sustainable production and consumption patterns. This goal includes SDG Target 12.3 "to halve per capita global food waste at the retail and consumer level, and reduce food losses along production and supply chains, including post-harvest losses by 2030" (United Nations, 2015a; p.27). The Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations (FAO, 2019) suggests that meeting this target could significantly help meet SDG Target 12.5 and Goal 2, both of which aim to achieve “zero hunger”. That is, reducing food waste may significantly help address food insecurity issues (Lipinski et al., 2013). Accordingly, specific food loss and waste reduction targets in line with the Target 12.3 have been set by several countries that together cover 50% of the world’s population and likewise two-thirds of the largest food corporations have also set independent targets in line with the said target (Flanagan, Lipinski, & Goodwin, 2019).

Globally it is estimated that annually approximately 30 to 50 percent of the food produced for human consumption is either lost or wasted (Institution of Mechanical Engineers, 2013), which by weight equates to 1.3 billion tonnes of food (Gustavsson, Cederberg, Sonesson, van Otterdijk, & Meybeck, 2011). Indirectly, food waste implies a wastage of all natural and person-made resources used to grow the food such as, water, soil, energy, and agricultural inputs (Gustavsson et al., 2011; Kummu et al., 2012; Lundqvist et al., 2008). Kummu et al. (2012) estimated that food waste entails a 25% loss of these resources throughout the food supply chain, which if saved could feed more than a billion people across the world. Environmentally, food waste also represents a loss of essential ecosystems, biodiversity, and forests; it also represents excessive production of greenhouse gases making it the third largest contributor to climate change (Wunderlich & Martinez,

2018), which in turn affects the availability of fresh water for growing more food (Lundqvist et al., 2008). Although currently food production is more than sufficient for a healthy and proactive life for the global population, food shortages and food insecurities are common in the developing world (FAO et al., 2014; Lundqvist et al., 2008). Socially, economically, and environmentally this costs 900 billion, 700 billion, and one trillion US Dollars, respectively (FAO, 2019; Gustavsson et al., 2011). Food waste has thus been described as an activity that costs more than the value it creates (Gooch, Felfel, & Marenick, 2010). It is estimated that controlling food waste could reduce 456 million tons of greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 in the UK alone (Barrett & Scott, 2012). Therefore, Principato (2018) states that reducing food waste is a “triple win” (p.1) because it represents financial savings by farmers, food industries, and consumers; environmentally, it can save natural resources such as water and land, and can reduce greenhouse gas emissions; and it can alleviate global hunger. For businesses, this would mean producing around 1300 trillion kilo calories (kcal) less food every year, without disrupting the normal business operations (Gustavsson et al., 2011; Shafiee-Jood & Cai, 2016).

Food waste occurs throughout the food supply chain, and it is arguably difficult to completely eradicate food waste (Gustavsson et al., 2011; Parfitt et al., 2010). Therefore, it becomes important to identify areas where food waste can be potentially avoided. To understand this, we need to begin with the definition of food waste to then understand avoidable food waste.

1.2.1. Definitions Multiple definitions of food waste have been used and revised since the 1980’s (Principato, 2018), with little consensus on the definitional parameters of food waste (Lebersorger & Schneider, 2011). These definitions vary in terms of timing, scope, stages, criteria, perspective, and type (Chaboud & Daviron, 2017). Some authors distinguish between food loss and food waste (e.g., Gustavsson et al., 2011; Parfitt et al., 2010). The more common definitions assign food waste to the end of the food supply chain (distribution and consumption) and food loss to the production, post-harvest, and processing stages of the food supply chain (Gustavsson et al., 2011; Lipinski et al., 2013; Parfitt et al., 2010; Thyberg & Tonjes, 2016). Food loss is the qualitative and quantitative loss of value and quality of food, thereby making food unfit for human consumption (Lundqvist et al., 2008; Parfitt et al., 2010), and food waste is the removal of food that is fit for human consumption (FAO, 2013; Parfitt et al., 2010). Following these generic definitions, food waste is considered a subset of

4 food loss (FAO, 2014). However, this distinction is not very clear, demonstrating the lack of consensus amongst academics on the definitional scope of food waste and loss, and posing a challenge for quantifying food waste and loss on commonly agreeable terms (Chaboud & Daviron, 2017).

Traditionally, food waste is defined as food appropriate for human consumption but is discarded because it is either gone past its expiry date, or left to spoil due to consumers’ eating and/or shopping habits (FAO, 2013). However, there are limitations to this definition. Firstly, the ‘intentional’ component of food waste is missed, which includes deliberately feeding edible food for human consumption to pets or diverting edible food to animal feed (Stuart, 2009b). Secondly, over-consumption and over-nutrition is missed (Smil, 2004). According to Smil (2004), in affluent countries, the difference between calorie availability and calorie consumption is over 1000 kilo calories per person per day, which could feed 350 million people on a meat-based diet and twice as many on a vegetarian diet. Some authors term this ‘luxus consumption’ as the phenomenon of food waste driven by overeating and wasteful resource utilisation (Blair & Sobal, 2006). Accordingly, Stuart (2009b) includes intentionally or deliberately wasted food, and Parfitt et al. (2010) add over-nutrition to their definitions of food waste.

As the definitional scope of food loss and food waste is not clear, researchers have steered away from using these traditional definitions as certain supply chain activities cannot be classified exclusively to either food loss or food waste. For example, large portions of vegetable and fruit harvests are rejected due to the existence of appearance standards imposed by retailers, which are then either converted into cattle and pig feed, or simply left unharvested (Stuart, 2009a). In this case it is unclear whether fruit and vegetable waste caused, due to appearance standards, is food loss or food waste because the waste is occurring in the earlier stages of the food supply chain (i.e. farm-level) but is caused due to factors concerning the latter stages (i.e. retail-level). Therefore, more inclusive definitions with clearer definitional boundaries are recommended.

This thesis follows the definitional framework by FUSIONS (Östergren et al., 2014) who define food waste as inclusive of all edible and inedible parts of food that have been lost, or diverted, or removed from the human food supply chain “irrespective of the cause, point in the food supply chain, or method of removal” (p. 6, footnote). Hence, following the FUSIONS definitional framework, fruit and vegetable waste caused by appearance standards

5 is clearly food waste, and not food loss. It is important to note here that the FUSIONS definition does not consider food that is fed to pets and other animals as food waste.

In order to address the problem of food waste, it is important to explore where food waste is avoidable. The WRAP (Waste & Resources Action Programme) previously postulated three categories of ‘unavoidable’ ‘avoidable’, and ‘possibly avoidable’ food waste (Quested & Johnson, 2009; WRAP, 2008). Unavoidable food waste is parts of food that is inedible under normal conditions (e.g., meat bones, coconut shells); avoidable food waste is all the food that was not wanted or not used in time and hence turned inedible (e.g. expired food); and possibly avoidable food waste which is food or parts of food that are eaten by some and not by all, or that can be eaten when food is prepared in one way but not in other ways (e.g., potato skins). More recently, to simplify waste classification, WRAP has defined new categories of food waste. These are ‘wasted food’ (i.e. edible food or parts of food intended for human consumption that are wasted, hence avoidable) and ‘inedible parts’ (not intended for human consumption e.g. bones, pits, etc., hence unavoidable) (Gillick & Quested, 2018). Wasted food comprises of both avoidable and possibly avoidable food waste and (according to the 2015 data) currently stands at 5 million tonnes in the UK (Gillick & Quested, 2018). Therefore, going by the 2014-2015 waste audit report, 66% of the food wasted by an average New Zealand household is avoidable (Waste Not Consulting, 2015), with far-reaching loss in terms of calories, resources, and energy that could be more efficiently used (Reynolds, Mirosa, & Clothier, 2016).

1.2.2. Fruit and Vegetable waste Global estimates show that out of the 30% of food wasted and lost globally, fresh fruits and vegetables, including roots and tubers, occupy that largest share of this waste at 45% (FAO, 2017b). Another report indicates that of all the fruits and vegetables produced in the USA, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, 52 per cent is wasted (Gunders, 2012). This means that as a significant proportion the global food waste is contributed by the waste of fruits and vegetables, focusing on reducing fruit and vegetable waste may help reduce the overall scale of food loss and waste (Buzby, Hyman, Stewart, & Wells, 2011). The FAO states that fruit and vegetable waste in the agricultural sector dominates in industrialised countries “mostly due to post-harvest fruit and vegetable grading caused by quality standards set by retailers” (p. 7), but then this waste increases by a further 15-30 per cent at the post- purchase consumer level (Gustavsson et al., 2011). For example, Buzby et al. (2011) report that in the USA retail and consumer levels, waste of fruits and vegetables are valued at

6 approximately US$43 billion per annum (≈US$141 per capita). Fruits and vegetables are the most wasted foods in the retail sector (Eriksson, 2012; Stenmarck, Hanssen, Silvennoinen, & Katajajuuri, 2011) which by weight is 85% of the total wasted food from retailers (Scholz, Eriksson, & Strid, 2015). Much of the fresh fruit and vegetable waste generated comprise of edible produce fit for human consumption; hence why alternative consumer movements against this waste, such as gleaning, freeganism, and dumpster diving, have materialised and are gaining prominence (Edwards & Mercer, 2007; Edwards & Mercer, 2013; Lee, Sönmez, Gómez, & Fan, 2017; Stuart, 2009a). In order to reach the ambitious goal of halving the amount of food wasted by 2030, it is crucial to understand the reasons or factors that facilitate this waste (Priefer, Jörissen, & Bräutigam, 2016).

This large scale of fruit and vegetable waste is contributed to by a range of factors. On a macro level, social and economic factors beginning with food supply chain modernisation to socio-political influences have contributed towards this waste and have implications for the nature of sustainability policies adopted to potentially prevent and reduce this waste (Thyberg & Tonjes, 2016). In affluent countries, modernised food supply chains have undoubtedly increased food availability, making food more affordable, and contributing towards overconsumption and waste (Blair & Sobal, 2006). In such situations, food is often looked at as calories or nutrients (carbohydrates, fats, proteins, vitamins, etc.) as opposed to a contributor of wellbeing (Block et al., 2011; Rozin, 2005). This has resulted in limiting consumers understanding of the value of food, how it is produced, the effort and the resources required to produce, process, package, and sell food (Fernqvist & Ekelund, 2014; Stuart, 2009b). As a result, consumers are less connected to the food they consume (Kneafsey, 2008) and are lost in the food production process (Goodman & DuPuis, 2002). This is well reinforced by Stuart (2009b) who says: “Affluent consumers in the Western world have become disconnected from what food really is, where it comes from and what its production entails. We have come to regard wasting it as simply a factor of what we can afford, rather than what can be sustained by the planet and the other people on it. Many do not realize the environmental impact; even fewer are aware that wasting food causes hunger elsewhere in the world” (p. 67). This disconnectedness with food is believed to be contributed to by greater disposable incomes, which has diversified diets by increasing the demand for non-seasonal and non-local produce, meats and dairy (Parfitt et al., 2010), and has also made wasting food more affordable (Gustavsson et al., 2011; Pearson, Minehan, & Wakefield- Rann, 2013; Stuart, 2009b).

The FAO suggests that as food expenditures have become insignificant, consumers have become less thrifty about food which has caused more food waste (Gustavsson et al., 2011). Likewise, the increase in urbanisation has also distanced consumers from food (Thyberg & Tonjes, 2016), because of fewer farmlands in urbanised areas means that fewer people are involved with agricultural processes (Parfitt et al., 2010). Cultural factors are also important determinants of fruit and vegetable waste (Rozin, 2005). Cross-cultural differences affect the way people in various cultures value food, which in turn affects the amount of food wasted. Commenting on appearance standards for bananas in the Western markets, Stuart (2009a) explains that produce rejected in affluent nations is widely accepted in other developing parts of the world, “When I first moved to Delhi, I was delighted and amazed by the bananas on sale there – small and sweet, with several different types unknown in the markets of Europe” (p. 95). Alternatively, examples of the American food culture from Bloom (2011) reflects a culture that values food less and wastes food more. Researchers have also compared the French and American food culture to show that the former has less food- related issues as opposed to the latter because their food culture is based on nurturance and well-being (Parfitt et al., 2010; Rozin, 2005). Some authors argue that as landfills have moved away from urban settlements, it has led to an ‘invisibility’ of waste (O'Brien, 2008), which subsequently caused concern about food waste to disappear from public discourse (Evans et al., 2013). Researchers have therefore suggested increasing the visibility of waste (e.g., maintaining kitchen diaries) to help consumers fathom the amount of food waste they generate (Ganglbauer, Fitzpatrick, & Molzer, 2012).

Food waste can also be a result of household practices and individual characteristics (Pearson et al., 2013), with parallels that can be drawn for fruit and vegetable waste. Generally, younger consumers are more wasteful than older consumers (Cox & Downing, 2007; Koivupuro et al., 2012; Quested & Johnson, 2009). This is because younger consumers place more importance on the hedonic value of food, unlike older consumers who consider the healthiness and economic value of food more important (Hebrok & Boks, 2017). Additionally, having grown up during times of war and faced periods of food shortages and rationing, older consumers tend to be more thrifty whilst handling food (Evans et al., 2013; Quested, Marsh, Stunell, & Parry, 2013; Watson & Meah, 2013). Food waste also relates to household characteristics. Typically, households with children tend to generate more food waste in order to accommodate the unpredictable nature of family members’ food preferences (Cox & Downing, 2007; Parizeau, von Massow, & Martin, 2015) and parents (particularly

8 mothers) also wanting to keep up with the identity of being a good parent by giving into the child’s demands (Graham-Rowe, Jessop, & Sparks, 2014; Porpino, Parente, & Wansink, 2015; Porpino et al., 2016). Likewise, smaller households waste more food as opposed to larger households (Parizeau et al., 2015; Williams, Wikström, Otterbring, Löfgren, & Gustafsson, 2012), this is particularly true for single-person households (Koivupuro et al., 2012; Silvennoinen, Katajajuuri, Hartikainen, Heikkilä, & Reinikainen, 2014). There is no consensus on the influence of household income on food waste. While some research shows household income has little influence on the quantity of food wasted (Cox & Downing, 2007), other studies suggest that higher income households waste more food than lower- income households (Stefan, van Herpen, Tudoran, & Lähteenmäki, 2013). Even households with lower incomes are found to produce large amounts of food waste (Porpino et al., 2015). A significant component of this waste is contributed through individual tastes and preferences, particularly perceptions of edibility (Aschemann-Witzel, de Hooge, Amani, Bech-Larsen, & Oostindjer, 2015). For households, this means buying more food to accommodate the food preferences of all the members of the household, dealing with fussy/picky eaters, and perceiving food risks pertaining to the edibility of food (Porpino et al., 2016; Watson & Meah, 2013). A significant proportion of avoidable food waste is a result of consumers’ perceptions about the edibility of food (Aschemann-Witzel et al., 2015). These perceptions are influenced by beliefs about the food’s safety and freshness, with the goal to protect one’s health (Block et al., 2016; Melbye, Onozaka, & Hansen, 2017). Safety (or edibility) and freshness (or quality) of food is determined with the help of date labels and appearance, where foods that surpass these (expiry/best before/use by) dates (Wilson, Rickard, Saputo, & Ho, 2017) and/or look atypical (de Hooge et al., 2017) are perceived to be undesirable, inedible, and suboptimal for consumption (Milne, 2013).

1.3. Suboptimal food waste Consumers’ perceptions about the edibility of food determine whether the food is accepted/consumed or rejected/wasted. A significant quantity of the food waste generated is a product of these edibility perceptions (Blichfeldt, Mikkelsen, & Gram, 2015; Quested et al., 2013). Aschemann-Witzel et al. (2015) have named those foods ‘suboptimal’ that consumers reject or discard because they are perceived to be ‘relatively undesirable’ when compared to other similar foods because they are either close to or gone past the best-before date, or look visually different from what is regarded as ‘normal’ or ‘optimal’(p. 6458-6459). Suboptimal foods therefore include foods that consumers perceive as undesirable because they are

9 nearing or have gone past their best before date, or have superficial packaging damage (e.g., dented canned foods), and fresh produce (fruits and vegetables) that do not fit with the standard appearance aesthetic, although these defects and irregularities have nothing to do with the safety and edibility of consuming the food (de Hooge et al., 2017). Even though suboptimal food waste has been confined to the consumer level, involving making choices in- store (to buy/not to buy) and at home (to consume/not to consume) (Aschemann-Witzel et al., 2015; de Hooge et al., 2017), it is well accounted that these perceptions influence the waste generated in the earlier stages of the food supply chain (Aschemann-Witzel et al., 2015; Raak, Symmank, Zahn, Aschemann-Witzel, & Rohm, 2017; Rohm et al., 2017). This phenomenon happens especially for fruits and vegetables that are perceived suboptimal, where retailer-set appearance standards for fresh fruits and vegetables cause produce rejection (and waste) in the earlier stages of the food supply chain (Stuart, 2009a).

1.3.1. Suboptimal fruit and vegetables Drawing from Aschemann-Witzel et al. (2015)’s definition of suboptimal foods, in this thesis, suboptimal fruits and vegetables or suboptimal produce is defined as fruits and vegetables that “consumers perceive as relatively undesirable as compared to otherwise similar [fruits and vegetables] because they… deviate (visually or in other sensory perception) from what is regarded as optimal (usually equal to what is perceived as “normal”)” (p. 6458-6459). Suboptimal produce, therefore includes fruits and vegetables that are visually unappealing due to one or more deformities such as an atypical size, shape, colour, and skin blemishes, although when compared to similar ‘optimal’ produce there is no lack in nutritional and hygiene qualities (Hyde, Smith, Smith, & Henningsson, 2001). In most cases, retailers sell fruits and vegetables loose and without date labels (Deng & Srinivasan, 2013), thereby leaving just the appearance as a cue for quality assessment and choice (Cardello, 1994). Hence, an atypical or abnormal appearance in fresh fruits and vegetables is often disliked because consumers invariably distrust or are unwilling to purchase and consume produce that do not fit the norm. However, the use of appearance as a quality standard is responsible for generating a large scale of fruit and vegetable waste along the food supply chain (Beretta, Stoessel, Baier, & Hellweg, 2013; Göbel et al., 2015; Gustavsson et al., 2011; Halloran, Clement, Kornum, Bucatariu, & Magid, 2014; Lebersorger & Schneider, 2014; Parfitt et al., 2010). This is through the use of an aesthetic appearance criteria formulated and practiced by retailers to sort out and remove suboptimal produce from the retail supply chain because consumers’ are unwilling to buy and consume produce that look

10 imperfect (Aschemann-Witzel et al., 2015; Gustavsson et al., 2011; Stuart, 2009a). These criteria are called private standards or retailer-set aesthetic or beauty standards for fresh fruits and vegetables.

1.3.2. Private standards: Retailer-set aesthetic standards for fresh fruits and vegetables Food retailers have developed product specifications catering to the shape, size, colour, weight, blemish levels, and the general appearance of fresh produce (Davey & Richards, 2013; Göbel et al., 2015; Halloran et al., 2014). These standards are known to prevent visually imperfect but perfectly edible produce from reaching supermarket shelves (Devin & Richards, 2018). Also called cosmetic or private standards, these beauty standards are often presented as quality parameters which are strictly imposed by retailers for sorting fruits and vegetables from the farm level onwards (Devin & Richards, 2018; Godfray et al., 2010; Gunders, 2012; Gustavsson et al., 2011; Mattsson, 2014; Mena, Adenso-Diaz, & Yurt, 2011).

It is believed that retailers have maximum structural power in the fresh food supply chain (Hingley, 2005). The concentration of capital and growth of the private retail sector has paved the way for retailers’ structural control over trade standards (Fuchs, Kalfagianni, & Arentsen, 2009). Trade standards typically cover food appearance, freshness and taste (Reardon & Farina, 2002); however, these standards are also criticised for being ‘unreasonable’ (Stuart, 2009a) as they overestimate consumer demands for food quality and safety, whilst only marginally representing environmental and social concerns around food production and availability (Eriksson, Strid, & Hansson, 2012; Fuchs et al., 2009; Mattsson, 2014). Stuart (2009a) described this in his book “Waste: Uncovering the global food scandal”. An excerpt from the chapter “Potatoes have eyes” reads as follows (2009a, p. 101):

“On a crisp December day in 2007, I traipsed through the mud and into the packing yard of M. H. Poskitt Carrots, a major supplier to the supermarket chain Asda…. These must be your high-end supermarket specimens? I asked him. He looked me in the eye. ‘No,’ he said, ‘those are the out-grades: they’re going for animal feed.

I tried to look unfazed, and picking up a handful of carrots, asked why they had been cast out of the human food chain. I could see no blemishes, they were a good standard size and they tasted wonderful. ‘They have a slight bend in them: they’re not perfectly straight,’ came Guy’s dead-pan reply. I held the carrots up to the

light and squinted to see if I could detect their kinks. The carrots were straighter than any I had ever grown, and at least as good. I checked to see if he was joking and turned to a man nearby who was raking the pile down flat. ‘Asda insist that all carrots should be straight, so customers can peel the full length in one easy stroke,’ he explained. Any knobbliness or bend can get in the way of the peeler’”

This is also reflected in Mattsson (2014), who states that private standards are more superior to the general trade standards. Additionally, producing cosmetically perfect produce requires more agricultural inputs (such as pesticides) and are arguably less organic as organic produce rarely grows perfectly (Pimentel, Kirby, & Shroff, 1993; Powers & Heifner, 2001). Hence, producing visually appealing foods, arguably lowers food quality and safety from a nutritional and health point of view (Fuchs et al., 2009). Further, growers find it more economically feasible to selectively harvest produce that fit the appearance aesthetic as it would mean a waste of resources spent on washing, packing, and transporting (suboptimal) produce, only to be sent back or rejected by retailers for cosmetic reasons (Gunders, 2012). The produce that fails to meet these standards are either converted to animal feed, biogas and fertilizers, ploughed back into the soil, or simply landfilled (Beretta et al., 2013; Gunders, 2012; Gustavsson et al., 2011; Stuart, 2009a). Nowadays, on-the-farm gleaning practices are growing in country-sides, encouraging consumers to visit produce farms and pick up the leftover crop at low prices (Bloom, 2010; Edwards & Mercer, 2007; Edwards & Mercer, 2013; Lee et al., 2017). This means that suboptimal foods are potentially recoverable for human consumption (Kantor, Lipton, Manchester, & Oliveira, 1997). The use of cosmetic standards has facilitated the standard practice to overproduce in farms, in order to create a safety net for unexpected losses due to rejections. The estimates show that manufacturers and growers produce a surplus of over 50 per cent, although the standard safety stock required is 30 per cent (Papargyropoulou, Lozano, Steinberger, Wright, & bin Ujang, 2014). These standards additionally entail a penalty for growers if the produce sent from the farm fails to meet the appearance standard (Parfitt et al., 2010). Similarly, take-back agreements between suppliers and retailers generates large quantities of waste at the supplier-retailer interface (Eriksson, Ghosh, Mattsson, & Ismatov, 2017; Mena et al., 2011). This lack of cooperation amongst the supply chain actors leads to surplus food production and subsequent waste generation across the food supply chain (Gustavsson et al., 2011; Kaipia, Dukovska‐ Popovska, & Loikkanen, 2013; Mena et al., 2011).

Given the increase in media attention on the waste of suboptimal produce, retailers have been under scrutiny for imposing these standards. As a result, countries (particularly in the European Union) have relaxed these standards (Priefer et al., 2016). In Europe, appearance standards have been repealed for 26 fruits and vegetables since 2009; however, retailers continue to use these standards irrespective of the execution of the amendment (Gustavsson et al., 2011). This is because selling perfect produce brings higher profit margins, as consumers are likely to pay more for produce that looks aesthetically appealing (Wansink & Payne, 2010; Yue, Alfnes, & Jensen, 2009). This is why food activists argue for the re-statement of standards that has more to do with the taste, nutritional quality and content than appearance (Priefer et al., 2016; Stuart, 2009a). In response to the growing pressures of suboptimal produce waste caused by the imposition of private standards, retailers have recently introduced suboptimal produce in stores (Aschemann-Witzel, 2018b; Aschemann- Witzel, Giménez, & Ares, 2018; Kulikovskaja & Aschemann-Witzel, 2017; Louis & Lombart, 2018). Examples from around the world include the French retailer’s Intermarche’s “Inglorious fruits and vegetables”; in America, Whole Foods launched “Misfit fruits and vegetables” and Walmart started the “Spuglies” line of suboptimal produce; similarly Metro, the Canadian retailer, introduced the “Rebels”; and in Australia and New Zealand the “Odd bunch” was started by supermarket chain Countdown.

1.3.3. Consumers acceptance of suboptimal produce The success of these retailer-driven initiatives depends upon consumers’ willingness to buy and consume suboptimal produce. Food acceptance is strongly affected by food appearance (Kader, 2013). Consumers consider fruit and vegetable appearance pivotal when determining quality and narrowing down choice (Nicolaï et al., 2009). The earliest research shows that consumers are unwilling to accept produce with slight blemishes (Bunn, Feenstra, Lynch, & Somer, 1990), often trading off cosmetic damages for price (Yue et al., 2009). More recent research has studied consumer attitudes towards different types of suboptimality. For example, studies confirm that consumers have limited tolerance of any form of skin blemishes, irrespective of the severity of these blemishes (Jaeger et al., 2016; Jaeger et al., 2018). Likewise, consumers have a low tolerance of colour defects because they perceive such defections to affect the safety, quality, and more importantly the taste and attractiveness of the produce (de Hooge et al., 2017; Schifferstein, Wehrle, & Carbon, 2018). Particularly, any form of browning is considered unacceptable by most consumers (Schifferstein et al., 2018), often calling for higher discounts (de Hooge et al., 2017). Studies

13 show that unlike blemishes and discolorations, shape defects are generally more acceptable (Aschemann-Witzel et al., 2018a, Aschemann-Witzel, Giménez, and Ares, 2018b; de Hooge et al., 2017; Loebnitz & Grunert, 2015; Loebnitz, Schuitema, & Grunert, 2015), although consumers (mis)perceive naturally occurring shape defects as a property of genetic modification (Loebnitz & Grunert, 2018). Therefore, research shows that consumers largely perceive suboptimal produce negatively, which is indicated through a low willingness to buy and consume suboptimal produce. In addition to poor quality inferences, consumers’ unwillingness to buy and consume ‘unattractive’ produce is also because it is perceived to be a reflection of one’s self-perceptions (Grewal, Hmurovic, Lamberton, & Reczek, 2019). Therefore, the challenge for food marketers is to market suboptimal produce in a manner that cuts through these pre-existing perceptions, whilst also increasing the profit opportunities for selling suboptimal produce (de Hooge, van Dulm, & van Trijp, 2018).

Researchers also report on several factors that influence the acceptance of suboptimal produce (for details see table 1). Most importantly, concern for the environment and having strong biospheric values and pro-environmental self-identities are clear influencers of suboptimal produce acceptance (Loebnitz & Grunert, 2015; Loebnitz et al., 2015; Wong, Hsu, & Chen, 2018), often leading consumption of suboptimal produce at home (Aschemann- Witzel, 2018a; de Hooge et al., 2017). Additionally, younger consumers and families with children are typically more likely to consume suboptimal produce as opposed to consumers who have greater disposable incomes (de Hooge et al., 2017). Likewise, the higher the education, the greater the likelihood of suboptimal food choice (Aschemann-Witzel, Jensen, Jensen, & Kulikovskaja, 2017). The impact of marketing communications on the acceptance of suboptimal produce is mixed as some studies suggest that communication about the price and altruistic values drive purchases, particularly for fresh produce (Aschemann-Witzel et al., 2018a; Aschemann-Witzel, Jensen, et al., 2017), while other studies show that communication has no effect on suboptimal food choice (Aschemann-Witzel, 2018a). Communication about food waste avoidance appeals more to women, leading to women choosing suboptimal foods more than men when such communication strategies are used (Aschemann-Witzel, 2018a), although past research reports that women end up wasting more fruits and vegetables than men (Silvennoinen et al., 2014). In other studies, however, suboptimal foods appealed to men more than women (Aschemann-Witzel et al., 2018b). Additionally, how suboptimal foods are presented can also influence choice likelihood (Helmert, Symmank, Pannasch, & Rohm, 2017). Therefore, research focus has now shifted to

14 the marketing of suboptimal foods. Irrespectively, familiarity with the practice of seeing suboptimal foods in-store significantly improves suboptimal choice likelihood (Aschemann- Witzel, 2018a). An overview of the consumer research on suboptimal produce acceptance and waste is provided in Table 1.

Table 1: Consumer research on suboptimal produce organised by year of publication

AUTHOR(S)(DATE) OBJECTIVE OF THE ARTICLE DESCRIPTION AND MAIN FINDINGS PAPER

Bunn et al. (1990) This paper examines Interviews conducted with 229 supermarket shoppers in consumers’ acceptance North and South California showed that consumers of oranges with skin expressed low acceptance of cosmetically scarred blemishes and how that oranges. However, upon being informed about lower changes with the added pesticide use (which meant increased skin blemishes), information of lower shoppers exhibited greater willingness to accept pesticide use blemished produce, irrespective of socio-demographic characteristics. The authors state that after providing consumers with the information of lower pesticide use, there is a substantial market for cosmetically imperfect produce

Yue et al. (2007) This research This study was conducted with 471 individuals during investigates consumers’ regional apple festivals at two orchards in a Midwestern willingness to pay state in the United States of America. Using photographs, premium prices for this study measured consumers’ willingness to pay for cosmetically damaged cosmetically imperfect organic apples again the following organic apples. variables: frequency of purchase, previous gardening experience i.e. growing your own food, previous purchase experience, preference for locally produced foods, and consumer tolerance for cosmetic imperfections. On a general note, results show that with an increase in blotch coverage, willingness to purchase cosmetically damaged apples decreases. Persons with larger households and families with children are more likely to purchase imperfect apples. Individuals who have grown their own produce or those who prefer produce that are locally procured are more willing to buy imperfect produce. The authors argue that consumers have a limited tolerance for cosmetically imperfect organic produce because any

imperfection stands as a strong intrinsic attribute against a weaker credence attribute of being organic

Yue et al. (2009) This study investigates This paper is based on an experimental auction with a consumers' willingness total 74 participants. This study shows that on the one to pay for blemished hand consumers demand environmentally friendly organic apples production methods, but are unwilling to pay for produce that have cosmetic damages. Consumers have a higher willingness to pay for organic apples than regular apples, provided there is little to no cosmetic damage. The experimental auctions showed that consumers unwilling pay a premium price for organic apples because of the cosmetic blemishes. This means that with the increase in cosmetic blemishes in organic apples, consumers prefer the better-looking, conventionally produced apples, and are unwilling to pay a premium for the organic apples. Consumers who exhibited concern for the environment, food safety, and taste have a higher willingness to pay more for organic blemished apples. Alternatively, consumers who are more concerned about the appearance place a higher discount cosmetically imperfect apples. Lastly, women showed greater reluctance to purchasing blemished apples, which the authors attribute towards the ‘concern over aesthetics’ of the female gender.

Loebnitz et al. (2015) This article tests the With a sample of 964 Danish consumers the authors use hypothesis that physical shape abnormality over three levels (normal, consumers reject moderately abnormal, extremely abnormal) as an intrinsic produce that deviate cue on four types of produce (apple, lemon, carrot, and from the normal shape banana), along with an extrinsic cue (organic label vs. no organic label), through an online experiment to assess consumers’ willingness to buy misshaped produce. The results show that food shape abnormality affects consumers’ purchase intentions, but only when these shape defects are extremely abnormal. This means that moderate shape defects are acceptable by consumers. Purchase intentions are also low for extremely misshaped organic produce, but no significant difference in purchase intentions is observed between organic and non-organic moderately misshaped produce. Surprisingly, consumers who hold a pro-environmental identity did not have any

significant effect on the willingness to consume suboptimal produce, which the authors argue could be attributed to not being exposed to such produce and not being aware that consuming misshaped produce amounts to pro-environmental behaviour. This paper suggests, that it is important to simultaneously have a pro- environmental self-identity and increase consumers awareness about the food waste issue to increase willingness to purchase moderately and extremely misshaped produce.

Loebnitz and Grunert This paper examines The study tested purchase intentions for oddly shaped (2015) how produce shape produce (normal, moderately abnormal, extremely abnormalities influence abnormal) against environmental concern and social trust Chinese consumers’ (trust in institutions, e.g. retailers) amongst 212 Chinese purchase intentions consumers. The results show that purchase intentions decreased with the increase in shape abnormality. Social trust had no influence on purchase intentions, rather environmental concern had the most influence in the acceptance of misshaped produce. Further, those with high social trust and environmental concern indicated high purchase intention for extremely misshaped produce; whilst those with weak environmental concern and high social trust exhibited low willingness to purchase misshaped produce. The authors therefore recommend raising environmental concern about the food waste problem by increasing knowledge and awareness about food waste, which may help in increasing willingness to but misshaped produce de Hooge et al. This paper studied the Through an online choice experiment with 4214 (2017) conditions in which consumers from five Northern European countries, this consumers make study investigated the conditions under which consumers suboptimal food purchase and consume suboptimal produce. The study purchase and reports that consumers evaluate different types of consumption choices. suboptimal produce differently. Particularly, shape defects are considered more acceptable as opposed to colour abnormality. As a result, consumers demanded a higher discount for a spotted apple and a lower discount for a curved cucumber. This is because colour deflections are perceived to be bad tasting, unsafe to eat and

unattractive. Younger consumers were less sensitive to sub-optimality and had a lower tendency to waste suboptimal products. People are also more likely to consume suboptimal produce post-purchase than buy suboptimal produce. Factors such as higher biospheric values and environmental commitment greatly reduces the waste of suboptimal produce. Further, consumers who regularly engage in shopping and cooking for the household are more likely to purchase and consume suboptimal foods, implying that targeting suboptimal produce to those who enjoy grocery shopping and cooking would be ideal to reduce suboptimal produce waste.

Aschemann-Witzel, This article uncovers This study used mixed-methodology with 16 qualitative Jensen, et al. (2017) the factors shoppers accompanied shopping interviews and a quantitative take into consideration online experimental survey with 848 consumers in when choosing price- Denmark to explore how consumers’ purchase of price- reduced suboptimal reduced suboptimal foods affects their eventual produce consumption and waste at home. The results showed that consumers purchase suboptimal foods when they are sure about their ability to consume them at home. This finding is particularly enhanced for consumers who are price- conscious as they may not be willing to waste the food after it is purchased. Suboptimal food choice in-store is also effected by the pack size of the product and the ability to divide the food amongst family members, the perceived product quality with regards to any date labels. The study highlights that it is important to show consumers the cost-saving benefit of buying suboptimal food to ensure sales.

Helmert et al. (2017) This article explored Using eye-tracking with 30 participants in Finland, the consumers’ eye authors found that discounted price badges on suboptimal movements (fixation foods were noticed longer. This could be because times) on suboptimal consumers expect suboptimal produce to be of lower versus optimal foods. quality, often leading to an expectation of a discount. Further, attention was higher when these badges carried information about the taste. Suboptimal foods were chosen less often, but when price discounts are applied along with taste information it tends to draw consumers

attention to suboptimal products, increasing the possibility of choice.

Loebnitz and Grunert This paper examined With 405 participants from Germany, an online choice (2018) how shape defects in experiment over two studies was used to examine how fresh produce shape defects are associated with the use of GM influenced consumers technology. The results show that consumers perceive perceived naturalness of misshaped produce to be associated with genetically- fresh produce modified food. This makes naturally occurring shape defects in fruit and vegetables to be perceived with risk. The authors suggest governmental campaigns to address this risk perception by “holding up a mirror” showing consumers their subjective knowledge or providing consumers with factual objective knowledge about the nature of these shape defects.

Schifferstein et al. This paper examines This research entailed a laboratory-based questionnaire (2018) how different colours in which was conducted with 40 volunteers of varying carrots influence nationalities in the Netherlands. The results show that any consumers’ anticipation form of browning is unacceptable to consumers as it of differences in decreases the attractiveness, which affects purchase product properties intentions. As a result, people are unlikely to buy produce that have spots, but are likely to use them up by cooking or preparing it in some way, so that it is not wasted. The authors identify that unfamiliarity with atypically coloured produce is the driving force behind its rejection, often implying lost culinary opportunities. Therefore, atypically coloured carrots were perceived as less attractive on account of low familiarity. The authors recommend providing tasting opportunities and bundle (mixed) pre-packs in-store to increase consumer familiarity with such produce.

Louis and Lombart This article explores This study was conducted with 546 participants in an (2018) consumers’ perceptions online experimental survey. The study shows that of retailers’ societal retailers’ communication of suboptimal produce is message legitimate by consumers and that retailers can use communications on communication strategies in addition to price discounts to ugly fruits and market suboptimal produce to consumers. Retailers’ vegetables claims on suboptimal food’s health, taste, and price was perceived credible by consumers, and was also perceived

to favourably as the retailers’ corporate social responsibility.

Aschemann-Witzel et To examine consumer With an online between-subjects experimental study with al. (2018b) in-store choice 746 Uruguayan consumers, the study reports that likelihood of suboptimal choice likelihood depends upon the food suboptimal food with category, where misshaped vegetables were most likely respect to the food chosen. Communication about the altruistic motive of category, food waste avoidance (“Choose this product and help to communication strategy reduce food waste”) significantly increased the likelihood and perception of of suboptimal food choice. Further, consumers who were quality dimensions financially well off were more affected by the altruistic message than the economic message. Men were also more likely to choose suboptimal foods than women.

Aschemann-Witzel The objective of this An online survey experiment with 842 Danish consumers (2018a) article is to examine the that realistically mimicked the current market context was influence of different to test the effect of different communication motives, communication organic accreditation, familiarity of practice, individual motives, organic and product-related properties on consumers’ preferences labelling, familiarity of for suboptimal foods. The results show that practice, product- communicating about budget savings or food waste related factors and avoidance or the produce being organic had no effect on personal preferences on consumers’ preferences for suboptimal foods. Although, the in-store choice of women were significantly more likely to choose a price-reduced suboptimal product with the food waste avoidance suboptimal foods message. Rather familiarity with the practice of seeing suboptimal produce in-store drove preferences for suboptimal foods in-store. Further, the overall perceived quality and the likelihood of use or consumption of the suboptimal food at home drove purchase. The author recommends increasing familiarity with expiration-date- based pricing of suboptimal foods and providing tips to consumers about the use of suboptimal foods at home can drive purchase and preference of suboptimal foods in store.

Researchers argue that consumers’ poor perceptions of suboptimal produce are driven out of the lack of exposure consumers have had to naturally occurring fruit and vegetable

20 defects (Osborn, 2016). This is partly validated in the suboptimal produce literature as consumers who enjoy cooking and shopping for groceries are more likely to buy and consume suboptimal produce (de Hooge et al., 2017). Particularly, familiarity has been highlighted as a factor that is linked to food acceptance in general (Dovey et al., 2012; Heath, Houston-Price, & Kennedy, 2011; Tuorila, Meiselman, Bell, Cardello, & Johnson, 1994), and suboptimal foods in particular (Aschemann-Witzel, 2018a; Rohm et al., 2017; Schifferstein et al., 2018). This means that the greater the exposure to suboptimal foods, the more familiarised consumers get towards suboptimal foods, and the greater is the likelihood for suboptimal food acceptance. As a result, researchers propose that one of the reasons for consumers to reject suboptimal produce is because they hardly get to see such produce in store (Devin & Richards, 2018), resulting in consumers being ‘trained’ to believe that fresh produce look identical and perfect (Osborn, 2016). For this reason, Yue et al. (2007) reported that consumers who grow and frequently purchase fruits and vegetables are more willing to accept suboptimal produce because they understand that natural defects in appearance have nothing to do with the quality and taste. In other words, the lack of exposure to suboptimal produce has socialised consumers to believe that fresh fruit and vegetables that look atypical have inferior quality. Arguably, therefore, increasing consumers’ exposure to suboptimal fruits and vegetables may change consumers’ perceptions about suboptimal produce. Interestingly, we are beginning to see the effects of food socialisations on consumers’ acceptance of suboptimal produce. As retailers are allowing shelf-space for suboptimal produce, the increased visibility and innovative in-store marketing techniques is generating demand for suboptimal produce (Aschemann-Witzel, de Hooge, & Normann, 2016; Cooremans & Geuens, 2019; Louis & Lombart, 2018). This ties in with the concept of consumer socialisations.

1.4. Consumer socialisations Consumer socialisation is defined as a lifelong, automated learning process of acquiring the knowledge and skills to function as a consumer (Ekström, 2006; John, 1999; Ward, 1974). Consumers acquire these attitudes, perceptions, knowledge, and beliefs to make choices in the marketplace. Hence, using consumer socialisation, we are able to understand the influences that help form these preferences (Ekström, 2006). Consumer socialisation, therefore, provides a dynamic process to understand consumer behaviour because it not only shows us what the attitudes, perceptions, and beliefs are, but also how these are formed. Consumer socialisation research, therefore, mostly focusses on children, studying how they

21 evolve into consumers (Ekström, 2006). In a similar vein, food socialisations indicate how consumers have formed attitudes, perceptions, and beliefs about foods.

Consumer food socialisation involves the understanding of how consumers learn to accept and/or reject foods, in the process of forming food preferences (Fallon, Rozin, & Pliner, 1984; Rozin, 1990). The socialisation of food preferences begins at an early age, resulting out of the food environment parents create for their children and familiarise them with (Fallon et al., 1984; Moschis & Churchill, 1978). Similar to consumer socialisation (John, 1999), food socialisation takes place directly from parents to children through communication and interaction, or indirectly when children observe and replicate parents’ behaviour (Benton, 2004; Westenhoefer, 2001). These socialisations result in forming strong attitudes towards certain foods (Marshall & Todd, 2010), lasting through to adulthood (Connell, Brucks, & Nielsen, 2014; Maccoby, 2015). This is captured in Gelman and Echelbarger (2019b, p. 346): “Childhood is a time when preferences and expectations are established that may persist for years and have lifelong consequences (e.g., brand loyalty; habits that have lifelong consequences, such as diet, smoking, or drinking; cultural values involving individualism, collectivism, freedom, or self-improvement)”. Additionally, Gelman and Echelbarger (2019a) add that studying children lends insight into adult thinking patterns, and helps understand the origins, the how and why of consumer behaviours. As consumers of the future, understanding a phenomena through the eyes of children provides an opportunity to design strategies that bring change in more effective ways (Gelman & Echelbarger, 2019a). Hence, studying food preferences in children gives insight into how these preferences are socialised, especially when these socialisations are easier to uncover early on in life than in adulthood.

Food practices lead to the development of food-related skills (Ayadi & Bree, 2010), through engagement and involvement with food, often leading to a better understanding of food edibility and learning to value food. For example, consumers who prefer take-outs waste more food as opposed to those who prepare meals from scratch (Mallinson, Russell, & Barker, 2016); which partly explains why food waste has increasingly grown in the last decade as consumers are arguably less involved and connected to the food they eat (Hebrok & Boks, 2017). As a result, modern households are considered the greatest contributors towards food waste because they are characterised by unplanned food purchases and increased take-outs (Parizeau et al., 2015). This disconnectedness with food leads to low nutritional knowledge and food preparation skills, and poor food well-being (Block et al.,

2011). Disconnectedness with food also has repercussions for food waste as it has resulted in consumers relying more on extrinsic product cues, such as date labels, to evaluate the quality and edibility of food (Van Boxstael, Devlieghere, Berkvens, Vermeulen, & Uyttendaele, 2014); most often resulting in confusion between the different date labels causing food waste even before the food has reached its expiration date (Neff et al., 2019; Wilson et al., 2017). Similarly, the disconnectedness with food has led to the lack of exposure to and familiarity with suboptimal produce, which has resulted in consumers over-utilising appearance as a parameter of quality (Imram, 1999). It was therefore argued that selling suboptimal produce in supermarkets would be difficult as consumers food preferences for perfect-looking produce is strong and relatively difficult to overcome without providing purchase incentives such as price discounts (Aschemann-Witzel et al., 2015; Aschemann-Witzel, de Hooge, et al., 2017; de Hooge et al., 2017; Rohm et al., 2017). Hence, researchers recommend that as retailers continue to allow shelf space for suboptimal produce, it may significantly help familiarise consumers with the atypical appearance, which in the long-run may help improve consumers’ perceptions of suboptimal produce (Aschemann-Witzel et al., 2016). Indeed, we are beginning to see that such retailer-driven initiatives have increased demand for suboptimal produce (Hermsdorf, Rombach, & Bitsch, 2017; Kulikovskaja & Aschemann- Witzel, 2017; van Giesen & de Hooge, 2019).

1.4.1. Young Consumers Marketers have recognised the importance of children as young consumers. We see this in retail environments where store formats are being tweaked to fit with children’s needs (Ayadi & Cao, 2016; Feenstra, Muzellec, de Faultrier, & Boulay, 2015). Researchers argue that children are drawn into the consumer culture from an early age (Buckingham, 2007). Developing into young consumers at a young age implies understanding the underlying issues around consumption, particularly concerning sustainability (Cohen & Horm-Wingerd, 1993; Palmer, 1993). This includes children’s understanding and knowledge about various environmental and sustainability issues reflecting their growing consumer power in influencing the choices they make as consumers (Strong, 1998). Likewise, children are often exposed to, and made aware of, sustainability issues at home (Grønhøj & Thøgersen, 2009). Children are also considered as change agents in the family (Stuhmcke, 2012), who influence the consumption decisions of family members and are recognised as sustainable consumers of the future (Grønhøj, 2016). Resultantly, children’s views and voices on sustainability are now

23 being considered for policy implementation (Engdahl & Rabušicová, 2011; Kahrİman- Öztürk, Olgan, & Güler, 2012).

In a similar vein, children’s involvement with food-related decisions is increasing as they are cognizant of their role in family food decisions (Holsten, Deatrick, Kumanyika, Pinto-Martin, & Compher, 2012; Nørgaard, Bruns, Christensen, & Mikkelsen, 2007). Children’s involvement with food is encouraged because it helps develop food-related knowledge and skills at a young age, which forms healthier and sustainable food preferences in the long-run (Metcalfe & Fiese, 2018). For example, researchers encourage children’s involvement in cooking, grocery shopping, and gardening because such activities help shift children’s preferences from unhealthy snack foods to healthier options (Canaris, 1995; Metcalfe & Fiese, 2018). Children’s participation in meal preparation, for instance, helps form better food preferences (Chu et al., 2013; Chu, Storey, & Veugelers, 2014). Such food experiences can impact how children are socialised to evaluate the edibility and value of food. Gardening projects particularly help impart the moral of valuing nature and food, which also helps increase children’s consumption of fruits and vegetables (Canaris, 1995; Gibbs et al., 2013). Likewise, co-shopping with parents exposes children to food marketing and parents’ decision-making, serving as a place to acquire these skills (Drenten, Okleshen Peters, & Boyd Thomas, 2008; Gram, 2015; Gram & Grønhøj, 2016; Haselhoff, Young, Faupel, & Holzmüller, 2014). This ties in with research on consumers’ acceptance of suboptimal produce where those who are more involved with food are more likely to be familiar with naturally occurring appearance defects in fresh fruits and vegetables (e.g., Yue et al. (2007). That is, as children nowadays are more participative in food-related decisions (Metcalfe & Fiese, 2018; O’Dougherty, Story, & Stang, 2006; Pettersson, Olsson, & Fjellström, 2004; van der Horst, Ferrage, & Rytz, 2014), there is a possibility that suboptimal produce could appeal to children.

Research to date has largely focussed on how adults perceive suboptimal produce, with little consideration as to how children perceive suboptimal produce. Further, research leans towards the possibility of appearance preferences for fresh produce being socialised, but there has been no empirical research undertaken to date that demonstrates these socialisations. This thesis, therefore, aims to fulfil this gap by studying how children perceive suboptimal produce, and thereby also uncovering the socialisations that form these perceptions. Children are increasingly aware of environmental issues. For example, as a part of the recent global school students’ movement for action against climate change (The

Guardian, 2019), the recent climate change strikes in New Zealand were led by school students demonstrating their concern for the environment and their futures, forcing politicians to adopt policies that allow the use of sustainable alternatives (Lawton, 2019). This denotes that children are active as young sustainable consumers, who are making an impact in their domestic spaces by enacting behaviours that they adopt in school and at home (Grønhøj & Thøgersen, 2009; Horton, Hadfield-Hill, Christensen, & Kraftl, 2013). Understanding how suboptimal produce is perceived through the eyes of children, therefore, provides an opportunity not only to understand how appearance preferences are socialised, but may also provide insight into how we can market suboptimal produce to children, who by their familial influence may potentially influence their families to accept and consume such produce. Specifically, from a marketing perspective, this thesis is positioned within the disciplines of consumer behaviour and sustainability research. It explores consumer perceptions towards suboptimal produce from a consumer socialisation perspective. It also argues for the need to study food waste, and in this case suboptimal produce waste, from the perspective of young consumers who are key stakeholders of a sustainable future.

1.5. Research questions

The points below are drawn from the literature review to highlight the development of the three research questions that this thesis addresses.

 Research to date shows that adults’ perceive suboptimal produce unfavourably, thus making selling suboptimal produce challenging for retailers (Grewal et al., 2019). Interestingly, the imagery used to market suboptimal produce in retail stores reflects that suboptimal produce may appeal to children. However, to date, research has not explored how children perceive suboptimal produce. Given that children have a significant influence on family food purchases (Nørgaard et al., 2007), understanding how children perceive suboptimal produce may present an opportunity for retailers to market suboptimal produce to children, and children themselves (through their pester power) could influence families and households to accept, buy, and eat suboptimal produce. Therefore, the first research question of this thesis is: RQ1: How do children use appearance cues to evaluate the edibility of suboptimal produce?  Adults’ perceptions of suboptimal produce are negative (e.g., de Hooge et al., 2017) and research leans towards the possibility of suboptimal produce perceptions being

socialised (Devin & Richards, 2018), however there is a dearth of research that has explored what these socialisations are. Hence, the second research question is to explore the factors that have formed these perceptions. Indeed, researchers have suggested that these perceptions could result from food socialisations (Osborn, 2016), although no empirical research has been done to date that has explored these socialisations. Hence, the second research question is: RQ2: How are appearance preferences for suboptimal produce socialised?  In light of children’s growing participation in consumer activism for environmental protection and sustainable development, they are stakeholders of the suboptimal produce waste problem. Hence, as consumer citizens and caretakers of future sustainability, it is important that suggestions to reduce suboptimal produce waste through children’s own voices are sought as well. In fact, suggestions from children for various sustainability issues is now being sought and implemented by both local and international governments and policy makers (e.g., Thunberg, 2019). Therefore the third research question is: RQ3: What are children’s recommendations for reducing suboptimal produce devaluation and waste? The methodology adopted for answering these research questions will be discussed in Chapter 2, and the each of these aforementioned research questions will be addressed in Chapter 3, Chapter 4, and Chapter 5, respectively.

1.6. Structure of the thesis The thesis is structured according to a paper-based thesis format, which allows the chapters to be presented in a format that is suitable for journal publications. The format of the thesis is presented in figure 1.

Figure 1: General Structure of the Thesis

Chapter 2 provides an overview of the methodology adopted for this research. This includes a description of the data collection process, data analysis, along with an explanation of the research philosophy adopted for the thesis. Chapters 3 (paper 1), 4 (paper 2), and 5 (paper 3) answer the three research questions presented in section 1.5 of this chapter. Finally, in Chapter 6, a concluding discussion is provided that integrates the findings from the three papers, and highlights the contribution to theory and practice.

1.7. Contribution The research presented in this thesis is topical due to food waste being one of the most widely discussed sustainability issues initiated by the United Nations. Food waste has also been taken up by governments representing over 50% of the world population and two-thirds of the leading global food corporations, who are now measuring food waste levels and setting waste reduction targets in line with the United Nation’s food waste reduction goals and targets (Flanagan et al., 2019). Of importance, four academic outputs have resulted from this

27 thesis. First, a working paper titled, “Understanding the socialisation of appearance-based preferences for fresh fruit and vegetables” was presented at the International Food Products Marketing Conference UK in 2018. The extended abstract of the presentation has been published in the conference proceedings. Second, the research presented in chapter 3 (paper 1) has been published in the Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services (ABDC: A), and has also received media attention, including newspaper reports, and television and radio interviews (see details in Appendix F). Chapter 4 (paper 2) has been submitted for publication in the Journal of Consumer Behaviour (ABDC: A). Lastly, Chapter 5 (paper 3) will be submitted to the Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services (ABDC: A).

This thesis makes a notable contribution to literature and practice. Generally, it is the first to use the voice of young consumers to understand the socialisation processes informing appearance-based perceptions of fresh fruits and vegetables. It also adds to the social practice theory of food waste by using the socialisation theory to show the sociological origins of these perceptions. By understanding these socialisations, this thesis not only extends the academic literature on suboptimal produce waste, but also makes suggestions for strategies that may help normalise suboptimal produce. In practice, strategies could counter the existing (mis)perceptions of suboptimal produce from a retailing and public policy perspective are suggested. Listed below are the specific major contributions made within this thesis:

 Past research has suggested that researchers should study how consumers respond to different types of appearance defects in fruits and vegetables because consumers perceive different types of appearance defects differently (e.g., de Hooge et al., 2017). However, most research to date has either focused on shape defects or defects in the form of blemishes (e.g., Rohm et al., 2017). This study presents findings for all types of appearance defects – this includes defects in shape, size, colour, and blemishes. By examining the full range of appearance defects, this thesis shows how differently children respond to different types of appearance defects. This has extended our understanding of consumer behaviour towards suboptimal produce by showing that all appearance defects are not perceived equally, with some appearance defects perceived to be less suboptimal than other appearance defects. The findings should also guide the definitions and methods for examining suboptimal produce in the future by ensuring researchers are aware that they type of suboptimality examined might influence research outcomes

 This thesis makes a significant contribution to the consumer socialisation literature by exploring the origins of appearance preferences for fresh fruits and vegetables and its impact on suboptimal produce acceptance and rejection. Alternatively, by using the socialisation theory it responds to the call to explore food waste from the social practice theory lens (Ganglbauer, Fitzpatrick, & Comber, 2013). This research is the first that provides empirical evidence about how the acceptance and rejection of suboptimal produce is socialised. This extends our understanding on the socialisation of appearance preferences for fresh fruits and vegetables by showing that these appearance preferences are entrenched in the normalised social practices concerning the consumption and use of fruits and vegetables. By doing so, this research casts light on how food waste prevention policies could be incorporated into daily social practices by moving from familiarisation to normalisation policies to counter the devaluation of food.  In terms of methodology, an observational approach using real fruits and vegetables was used to directly observe live reactions to different types of naturally occurring defects in suboptimal produce. This is unlike past research where suboptimality was controlled in an online survey. Hence the methodology used in this research captures responses to suboptimal produce that could be considered close to actual responses. This makes the data obtained more reliable in the sense that the prompts used to bring out the responses were natural.  Lastly, this is the first research that has explored and reported how children perceive suboptimal produce, making a significant contribution to the suboptimal produce waste literature by showing the nuances of suboptimal produce acceptance and rejection through children’s perspective. Further, the young consumer cohort is an impactful market segment that contributes significantly to market demand. Thus opportunities for practitioners, most notably retailers, are highlighted who could use this knowledge to market suboptimal produce to young consumers, and ultimately to other consumers. Additionally, this research adds to a growing body of research that recommends taking suggestions from young consumers for sustainable development, an area that is fast expanding and is likely to grow further (e.g., Aitken, Watkins, & Kemp, 2019; Donovan, 2016). Based on these suggestions, the research closes with recommendations for retailers and policy makers, and opens new questions for future

research to explore to advance research in this field.

Chapter 2: Methodology

This chapter covers the methodological aspects considered for this research. The chapter starts with a discussion of the concepts central to research philosophies, and then suggests that the research paradigm adopted by this research is partly positivist due to the experimental/observational design of the shopping activity, and largely interpretivist due to the focus group discussions and the inductive thematic analysis technique used for the three papers that follow the methodology. To avoid repetition, details of the study participants, stimuli, and data collection procedure and analysis process have been avoided as these are described in the three papers following this chapter.

2.1. Overview The previous chapter presented the literature relevant to this thesis and stated the research questions this body of research answers. This chapter outlines the research methodology chosen to answer the research questions and fulfil the objectives outlined in the literature review. The overarching objective is to study how appearance preferences for fresh produce are socialised, and how these perceptions result in suboptimal produce acceptance or rejection. For this, data was collected from child participants that helped answer the specific research questions on suboptimal produce acceptance/rejection and waste. These are: RQ1: How do children perceive suboptimal produce? RQ2: What are the socialising factors that influence the acceptance or rejection of suboptimal produce? and RQ3: How can suboptimal produce devaluation and waste be reduced?

2.2. Introduction Research methodologies and design help justify why a particular research plan is adopted. Specifically it attempts to justify how a particular research method is best-suited for the research inquiries set forth, although a particular methodology may be required by the context or the purpose of the questions itself, and the methodology itself may also contribute to the body of knowledge in the discipline or context itself (Clough & Nutbrown, 2012). Every research is developed on the basis of certain philosophical assumptions about what constitutes valid research and which method(s) is/are considered appropriate to advance knowledge. For this, it is important to know what the underlying assumptions are which will be discussed in the next section.

2.3. Research Paradigm According to Blanche, Durrheim, and Painter (2006) a research paradigm encompasses three major dimensions namely, ontology, epistemology, and methodology. Research paradigm literally means research pattern. Thomas Kuhn’s definition of research paradigm refers to the assumptions, values, and beliefs shared by researchers for the nature and conduct of research (Devlin & Bokulich, 2015). Hence, a research paradigm signifies a pattern or structure for scientific and academic ideas and assumptions. Ontological and epistemological components of a research paradigm broadly imply a person’s worldview. This worldview influences how aspects of reality are perceived. Specifically, ontology is a branch of philosophy that articulates the nature and structure of the world, and it asks what can be known about it (Wand & Weber, 1995). Epistemology refers to the relationship between the researcher and the knowledge and denotes how knowledge and understanding can be acquired by the researcher through different investigative methods (Hirschheim, Klein, & Lyytinen, 1996). Lastly, methodology refers to the practical steps or strategy the researcher takes to find out answers about what is believed can be known. It strategizes enquiry into research design and data collection (Myers & Avison, 2002). The most basic classification of research methodologies is into quantitative and qualitative research. Quantitative research was developed for the natural sciences involving statistical analysis and interpretation of numbers gathered through surveys and experiments. The focus of most quantitative research is to test theory by measuring relationships by comparing means and variances (Hittleman & Simon, 1997). This makes quantitative research more deductive than inductive. Of importance to this research, qualitative research methods originated in the social sciences and are best suited to study social and cultural phenomena. Hence, qualitative research methods involve interpreting phenomena and unearthing the underlying meaning in peoples choices, behaviours and lives (Denzin & Lincoln, 2003). Qualitative research is also about exploring the problem or question in greater depth, especially when the phenomena being researched is fairly new with uncertain dimensions and characteristics. One of the biggest advantages of qualitative data is the richness and depth of the data obtained (Longfield et al., 2016). This allows researchers to understand consumers within their social, material, and cultural contexts of living (Myers & Avison, 2002).

In qualitative research, there are notably three epistemological philosophies, namely positivism, interpretivism, and post-modernism (Gephart, 1999). All three philosophies concern the worldview, the nature of knowledge pursued, and the manner with which the

31 worldview is discussed. Although research can be exclusive to certain philosophies, it can also be based on multiple paradigms based on the nature of the research. A positivist paradigm involves exploring the social reality and rests in the belief that the best way to observe human behaviour is through observation and experiment, and presenting empirical results for the behaviour/phenomena observed (Henning, van Rensburg, & Smit, 2004). Food waste research has used a positivist paradigm with research aiming to quantify the amount of food waste generated (e.g., Beretta et al., 2013; Porat, Lichter, Terry, Harker, & Buzby, 2018). Similarly, research undertaken in the suboptimal produce waste literature has also predicted and quantified consumers’ willingness to buy suboptimal produce (e.g., de Hooge et al., 2017). A positivist paradigm is adopted in stage 1 of the data collection where an experimental set-up was used to observe children’s produce choice behaviours. The actual behaviours of the sample were then used to report their suboptimal produce perceptions in Paper 1.

Interpretivism, on the other hand, asks ‘why’ and ‘how’ (Deetz, 1996). In marketing research, studying consumer behaviour involves understanding consumer experiences which are not directly accessible by researchers, who can only have access to their own experiences. This means that researchers can only understand consumer experiences by observing actual behaviours and interpreting respondents’ verbal or written accounts of their opinions and past behaviours (Carù & Cova, 2003). Interpretivism has proved useful in discovering the ‘complexity’ of the food waste problem (e.g., Quested et al., 2013), highlighting the social and material contexts in which food-related decisions are made (e.g., Evans, 2011; Watson & Meah, 2013) An interpretivist paradigm recognises individual differences and subjectivity in the meanings consumers associate to different objects and phenomena (Creswell, 2009; Myers & Avison, 2002). This allows for a richer understanding of a phenomena. An interpretivist paradigm was used during both stages (1 and 2) of the data collection where children where asked why they made certain produce choices, and how they perceived the produce that are suboptimal. More notably, an interpretivist paradigm emerges stronger during stage 2 of the data collection as focus group discussions were used to gather in-depth knowledge about how and why children have the perceptions towards suboptimal produce. The research paradigm underpinning this research partly follows a positivist paradigm, but largely follows an interpretivist paradigm. Therefore, a combination of a positivist and interpretivist paradigms underpins this study.

Thus, this research employs an explorative approach, following a mix of positivist and interpretive research paradigms, and uses qualitative methods to explore the subjective perceptions, the underlying socialisations, and opinions about suboptimal produce waste from children. The explorative approach proved useful to capture the subjective narratives about fresh produce procurement, consumption, and waste.

2.4. Research Design A two-step research process was used to answer the research questions presented in section 1.5. Ethical approval for data collection was sought from the University of Otago Human Ethics Committee (See Appendix A for ethics application form). Data was collected from 97 students (46 boys and 51 girls) from George Street Normal School, a high decile (9), state funded, co-educational school in North Dunedin. This means that a large proportion of the students of this school come from high socio-economic backgrounds. This school was chosen due to its affiliation with the University of Otago.

Using multiple methods for research with children is a useful way of understanding a phenomenon from a range of perspectives (Lucchini, 1996; Morrow, 2001). Hence, a two- step process was used, the first being an observational shopping activity followed by focus group discussions. Both steps are embedded in qualitative research. Qualitative research is well suited for collecting authentic and detailed data from child participants (Darbyshire, MacDougall, & Schiller, 2005) and observations have been previously used in research studying children’s shopping behaviours (Atkin, 1978; Gaumer & Arnone, 2009). The purpose of having the shopping activity was to get children to start thinking (and talking) about the appearance of fresh produce. Additionally, it allowed observations of how produce choice was made by recording actual choice behaviours, particularly how produce appearance plays a role in determining produce choice. In a similar vein, focus group discussions are a useful means for collecting data from children, as the group setting allows free-flowing conversations, which facilitates richer data about children’s experiences, perceptions, opinions, and knowledge (Gibson, 2007; Gibson, 2012; Heary & Hennessy, 2006; Heary & Hennessy, 2002; Kennedy, Kools, & Krueger, 2001). Accordingly, Ghauri (2005) suggested that group discussions reveal very rich and detailed perspectives expressed through respondents’ own words and reactions. Research recommends using familiar environments when collecting data from children (Kennedy et al., 2001; Krueger & Casey, 2009). Hence,

33 the entire data collection was done within the school’s premises, in a large, empty common room, during school hours.

A number of measures were taken to reduce experimenter/researcher bias. Firstly, the ethics forms and information sheets inviting students to participate in the study were distributed by the school teachers rather than by the researchers to ensure all students had an opportunity to take part. Research suggests that children are typically more honest and candid than adults about sharing their own experiences (Buckingham, 2007; Krueger & Casey, 2009), however, to further avoid social desirability bias, the participants were assured several times throughout the study that there were no right or wrong answers. In line with research recommendations to minimise social desirability bias, a question protocol was prepared to guide the focus group discussions (Grimm, 2010). However, the questioning style was facilitative and fluid to ensure the discussion was driven by the participants, and the question protocol ensured that all of the main topics were discussed at some point during the discussions. To ensure that every child had equal opportunity to participate, children who were less dominant in the discussions were asked their thoughts (Krueger & Casey, 2009; Grimm, 2010).

The data collection process was pilot tested prior to the actual data collection to refine the procedure. The trial of the shopping activity revealed the importance of asking children what they thought about the produce they chose or rejected at the very moment they were making their choice. The trial of the focus group discussion revealed the importance of using language that children are familiar with and can easily comprehend. For example, “What are your opinions about this carrot?” was replaced by “What do you think about this carrot?”. Likewise, words such as ‘edible’, ‘appearance’ and ‘tasty’ were replaced with ‘eat’, ‘looks’ and ‘yummy’.

The findings in this thesis were drawn from one large study and separated into three papers. Paper 1 (Chapter 3), which focused on attitudes towards suboptimal produce, was based on data drawn from the shopping activity, and the focus group discussion on children’s perceptions of suboptimal versus optimal produce. Paper 2 (Chapter 4) focused on the socialisation of attitudes towards suboptimal produce and the data was drawn from the focus group discussions on growing, shopping, and preparing produce for consumption, and learning about food waste. Lastly, paper 3 (Chapter 5), which focussed on children’s recommendations for reducing food waste, was based on data drawn from the focus group

34 discussions on retailer strategies to reduce suboptimal produce waste and recommendations to prevent the waste of suboptimal produce. In all three papers, inductive thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006) was used to analyse and report the results. In the next three chapters (papers 1, 2, and 3), descriptions of the study participants, stimuli used, data collection and the analysis process will be detailed for every paper.

Chapter 3: Paper 1

“I don’t like wonky carrots”: An exploration of children’s perceptions of suboptimal fruits and vegetables

Abstract Children’s perceptions of suboptimal fruits and vegetables have not been studied in the suboptimal foods domain. Using two qualitative research methods, this study investigates children’s (N=97) edibility perceptions of suboptimal produce with varied appearance defects. The results show that unlike adult samples previously studied, children are more accepting of suboptimal produce. Defects in shape, size, and certain colour defects were positively perceived, reflecting retailers’ opportunities to market suboptimal produce. High levels of brown discolorations and superficial blemishes were not acceptable, implying that produce with such defects could be repurposed as ingredients in foods prepared and sold in- store. These implications reflect retailers’ opportunities in marketing suboptimal produce to children, who by their familial influence may also be able to get families to buy and consume suboptimal produce. The importance of familiarity in improving suboptimal food acceptance is also recognized for future research to explore.

Keywords: Suboptimal produce; Food appearance; Children; Qualitative research; Food acceptance

3.1. Introduction Modern food consumption is arguably unsustainable because food production is resource intensive (Foley et al., 2005), and 30-50% of all food grown is wasted (Gustavsson et al., 2011; Institution of Mechanical Engineers, 2013). A major cause of food waste is food rejection due to outdated labels, defective packaging and consumers’ misperceptions of food edibility because of non-standard appearance. Aschemann-Witzel et al. (2015) named foods which consumers reject or discard as suboptimal foods and defined suboptimal produce as fresh fruits and vegetables that “consumers perceive as relatively undesirable as compared to otherwise similar [produce] because they… deviate (visually or in other sensory perception) from what is regarded as optimal (usually equal to what is perceived as “normal”)” (Aschemann-Witzel et al., 2015, pp. 6458-6459). Appearance cues assist in forming

36 expectations about the edibility of food (Steenkamp, 1990) and are particularly pertinent in determining choice and quality inferences regarding fresh produce (Olson, 1978) because fresh produce is typically sold loose or in clear packaging (Deng & Srinivasan, 2013), and often lacks date labels. Hence, physical appearance becomes an important determinant of fruit and vegetable choice (Cardello, 1994). Consumer perception of suboptimal fruits and vegetables as inedible or undesirable is estimated to generate an avoidable waste of 45% (FAO, 2017b). Resultantly, researchers have examined how best to increase consumer purchase and consumption of suboptimal foods by drawing strategies from consumer research, such as drawing attention towards suboptimal products (Helmert et al., 2017), familiarising customers with suboptimal foods in- store (Aschemann-Witzel, 2018a) and at home (Symmank et al., 2018), and nudging consumers through price discounts and communication/posotioning strategies (Aschemann- Witzel, 2018b; Louis & Lombart, 2018; Rohm et al., 2017; van Giesen & de Hooge, 2019). In response to the increasing public concern regarding food waste, retailers have initiated selling suboptimal produce in-store (Aschemann-Witzel, de Hooge, et al., 2017; Aschemann-Witzel et al., 2018a; Louis & Lombart, 2018). Retailer campaigns marketing suboptimal produce often emotionalise them as the ‘loveable underdogs’ that are too good to be wasted (Aschemann-Witzel et al., 2018a; Aschemann-Witzel, Jensen, et al., 2017), thereby evoking sympathy and liking for suboptimal produce (Ketron & Naletelich, 2019). The campaigns include animated visuals, imagery, and catchy slogans aimed at educating consumers about food waste, whilst encouraging more end-users of suboptimal produce (Aschemann-Witzel, 2018a; Aschemann-Witzel, de Hooge, et al., 2017; Louis & Lombart, 2018). Given that children are strong influencers in socialising their families to adopt sustainable lifestyles (Grønhøj, 2016; Watne & Brennan, 2011), the marketing of suboptimal fruits and vegetables as “fun foods” raises the question of whether suboptimal fruits and vegetables could appeal to children, and whether this could influence families to buy, and consume, suboptimal produce. Research has shown how adults perceive appearance cues of suboptimal foods, however, this paper is the first to explore how children use appearance cues to judge the edibility of suboptimal produce; thus providing practical insight into how retailers could market suboptimal produce to children. This, in turn, could influence families to purchase and consume suboptimal produce, potentially reducing food waste.

3.1.1. Consumer perceptions of appearance cues in suboptimal fruits and vegetables Although appearance standards do not officially exist for fresh fruits and vegetables (since 2009), cosmetic standards continue to be widely practiced by retailers (Gustavsson et al., 2011). Atypical appearances in suboptimal fruits and vegetables include shape, size, and colour defects, and the presence of blemishes, or a general non-standard unfamiliar appearance (Gustavsson et al., 2011; Stuart, 2009a). As food appearance is pivotal in the acceptance of fresh fruits and vegetables, deviations in appearance may imply poor quality (Cardello, 1994). Research demonstrates that adults find blemishes or bruises in fresh produce unacceptable (Bunn et al., 1990; de Hooge et al., 2017; Jaeger et al., 2016; Yue et al., 2009; Yue et al., 2007) because they make the produce less tasty and safe (de Hooge et al., 2017). Low value for money or the inconvenience of eating blemished produce are strong barriers that inhibit consumption of blemished produce (Jaeger et al., 2018). Hence, Jaeger et al. (2016) note that while price discounts could be used to sell blemished produce, the condition of the produce at the point of consumption is important to prevent waste as blemishes entail the perceived risk of contamination (Aschemann-Witzel, 2018a; de Hooge et al., 2017). Likewise, children perceive contamination as undesirable and disgusting (Fallon et al., 1984), hence we hypothesize that like adults, children too will be unwilling to accept blemished produce. Whilst moderate shape defects are accepted (de Hooge et al., 2017; Loebnitz et al., 2015), extreme shape abnormality is still perceived as unacceptable (Loebnitz & Grunert, 2015; Loebnitz et al., 2015). Helmert et al. (2017) and van Giesen and de Hooge (2019) suggest providing price discounts in combination with product positioning strategies to further the acceptance of misshaped produce. Unlike adults, children might be more accepting of extreme shape abnormalities as research has shown children’s fruit and vegetable consumption increases when they are cut into “cute”, unusual, but fun shapes (Branen, Fletcher, & Hilbert, 2002; Olsen, Ritz, Kramer, & Moller, 2012). Colour is another appearance cue that affects taste perceptions (Koch & Koch, 2003). Consumers prefer foods with greater chromatic vibrancy, perceiving them to taste fresher (Lee, Lee, Lee, & Song, 2013). Consumers specifically find any degree of browning unacceptable (Schifferstein et al., 2018). While adults show scepticism towards unfamiliar colours in foods (Leksrisompong, Whitson, Truong, & Drake, 2012; Paakki, Sandell, & Hopia, 2016), children have shown liking for familiar foods with atypical colours (Dovey et

38 al., 2012), or foods that have their favourite colours (De Moura, 2007). Thus, children may prefer fruits and vegetables with atypical colours. Size, as an appearance cue, has received less attention in the suboptimal food context. Research finds consumers typically prefer average or regular-sized produce as opposed to very small or very large-sized produce (Jaeger et al., 2011). Hence why size standards are imposed by many supermarkets (Mena et al., 2011; White, Gallegos, & Hundloe, 2011). For children, obesity research shows they typically prefer smaller portions of fruit and vegetables on the plate (Colapinto, Fitzgerald, Taper, & Veugelers, 2007) and regular to small–sized whole fruits and vegetables (Olsen et al., 2012), and are more likely to eat fruit and vegetables when they are cut into smaller pieces (Kirby, Baranowski, Reynolds, Taylor, & Binkley, 1995). Therefore, we can assume that children are likely to prefer small-to-regular sized produce over very large ones. Of all the stakeholders in the food supply chain, supermarket retailers in particular play a significant role in influencing consumer decisions through marketing mix elements (Halloran et al., 2014). Thus retailiers have the opportunity to influence consumer decisions to buy and consume foods that may otherwise be wasted. 3.1.2. Suboptimal foods in supermarkets With increasing societal interest in saving suboptimal produce, retailers have come under scrutiny for imposing cosmetic standards. Supermarkets around the world have implemented initiatives to sell suboptimal fruits and vegetables, in an effort to curb their waste and familiarise consumers with produce that deviate from the norm (Aschemann- Witzel, 2018a; Aschemann-Witzel, Jensen, et al., 2017; Clayton & Carnegie, 2017; Louis & Lombart, 2018; Mortimer, 2015). Examples include the French retailer Intermarché’s Inglorious fruits and vegetables and American retailer Whole Foods’ Misfit fruits and vegetables. These initiatives involve selling non-standardised produce that would otherwise be wasted at discounted prices with eye-catching imagery and slogans. Interestingly, these initiatives were well received by the public and also started a buzz around food waste, furthering consumer awareness and commitment to stamp out food waste (Louis & Lombart, 2018). Creative campaigns, such as Intermarché’s initiative naming suboptimal produce such as the "grotesque apple" or the "ridiculous potato", have led to increased footfalls and stocks selling out (Intermarché, 2014). Likewise, in Australia and New Zealand, Woolworths offered the “Odd bunch” to fight food waste and also support local growers (Love Food Hate

Waste New Zealand, 2017; Turner, 2014). Thus we find that retailer involvement has created an opportunity for changing consumer perceptions of suboptimal foods. 3.1.3. Retailers and children Research has recognised children as the future generation of sustainable consumers who successfully influence their families to adopt sustainable lifestyles (Grønhøj, 2016; Stuhmcke, 2012). Children are highly involved in family grocery trips and play a significant role in family food decisions in-store and subsequently family consumer behaviour (Bertol, Broilo, Espartel, & Basso, 2017; Marshall, 2014). Likewise, supermarkets provide the atmospherics for children to actively engage with the products and promotional strategies available in store (Ayadi & Cao, 2016), thereby serving as an agent of consumer socialisation (John, 1999). Fitting the supermarket services and store layout for families with children has become imperative for retailers to retain them as grocery shoppers (Page, Sharp, Lockshin, & Sorensen, 2018). Therefore, the combination of children’s participation in grocery shopping and retailer efforts to sell suboptimal foods in-store and inform consumers about the food waste problem leaves scope for retailers to actively engage this young market. In fact, we are increasingly seeing visuals, imagery, slogans, and animated graphics for suboptimal produce which could appeal to children. For example, when the “odd bunch” was launched in New Zealand in 2017, children reported that the wonky produce would be “more fun to eat” than regular ones (Clayton & Carnegie, 2017). Food waste activist, Jordan Figueiredo, reports that children from all around the world are more responsive, actively engaged, find humour in, and sympathise with, suboptimal produce, which has led to the campaign “Kids Love Ugly Fruit” (Figueiredo, n.d.). Further, research suggests that owing to less stable food appearance preferences, children are more likely to prefer abnormal or atypical, over normal or typical (Poelman & Delahunty, 2011). These reports reflect the untapped potential of this consumer cohort for retailers trying to encourage the consumption of suboptimal produce. Therefore, contrary to adults who have expressed negative attitudes towards suboptimal foods and need to be incentivised to accept suboptimal produce (Aschemann- Witzel et al., 2016; Aschemann-Witzel, Jensen, et al., 2017; de Hooge et al., 2017; Graham- Rowe et al., 2014; Jaeger et al., 2018; Watson & Meah; 2013), children could be more accepting of suboptimal produce. However, research to date has not studied how this consumer segment perceives suboptimal fruits and vegetables, a question addressed by the current study. Specifically, this paper reports on the appearance cues children use to determine the acceptability of suboptimal fruits and vegetables, and how such cues are used

40 to make both positive and negative inferences about the edibility of suboptimal produce. The implications of these findings shed light on how retailers and food marketers can direct suboptimal food waste avoidance initiatives to children, in the hope of indirectly getting families to consume suboptimal produce and change edibility perceptions.

3.2. Materials and Methods

3.2.1. Study Design This study involved an observational shopping activity and focus group discussions. Qualitative methodologies provide authentic and detailed information when obtaining data from children (Darbyshire et al., 2005), and using multiple methods provides complementary insights to understand a phenomenon from a range of perspectives (Darbyshire et al., 2005; Lucchini, 1996; Morrow, 2001). The purpose of the shopping activity was to observe how children make choices between suboptimal and optimal produce and the arguments they construct to justify their preferences, while also getting them to talk about the appearance of the produce as they made their choices. Observational studies are considered ‘well-suited’ for capturing realistic and actual behaviours (Rust, 1993) and have previously been used to observe children’s shopping behaviour (Atkin, 1978; Gaumer & Arnone, 2009). The focus group interviews were used to explore children’s’ attitudes towards, and their perceptions of suboptimal produce in greater depth. Focus group discussions are a popular technique for collecting data from children; they enable the researcher to explore children’s experiences, knowledge and perceptions in a manner that makes the child participants feel comfortable when sharing their consumption stories (Gibson, 2007; Gibson, 2012; Heary & Hennessy, 2002; Heary & Hennessy, 2006; Kennedy et al., 2001). The study had ethical approval from the University of Otago, and both parents and children gave their written and informed consent.

3.2.2. Participants Participants included 97 children aged between 5-11 years, recruited through a large (enrolment approximately 500) co-educational, central, state school, and with a socio- demographic distribution parallel to the New Zealand population. To reduce selection bias, the teachers distributed information and consent forms to 170 children and 102 were returned (60% acceptance rate), although 5 children were absent from school during data collection. To enable a socio-demographic description of the sample, parents provided age, gender, and ethnicity information of their child [Table 2]. The dominance of the European ethnic group

41 over the other ethnic groups is representative of the NZ population, thus not affecting the nature of the responses obtained from the study.

Table 2: Socio-demographic characteristics of the participants

Sample properties Frequency Percentage (N=97) (n) (%) Gender Boys 46 47.4 Girls 51 52.6

Age 5 3 3.1 6 10 10.3 7 19 19.6 8 22 22.7 9 18 18.6 10 18 18.6 11 7 7.2

Ethnicity European 70 72.2 Māori 2 2.1 Asian 4 4.1 European & Māori 6 6.2 European & Asian 5 5.2 European, Māori & Pacific Peoples 1 1 Māori & Pacific Peoples 2 2.1 MELAA 1 1 Others 3 3.1 Not stated 3 3.1

3.2.3. Stimuli The shopping activity combined children’s shopping scripts (Drenten et al., 2008) and choice experiments, used in most suboptimal food waste research (e.g., de Hooge et al., 2017). However, unlike past research where the degree and type of suboptimality was controlled using pictures (e.g., de Hooge et al., 2017; Jaeger et al., 2016; Loebnitz et al., 2015; etc.), real produce was used where the degree and type of suboptimality was not controlled. This allowed a real-life perspective of children’s perceptions through their ‘live’ reactions. The stimuli used in the observation shopping activity were adapted from Drenten et

42 al. (2008) and included four types of fruits (apples, pears, oranges, and lemons) and four types of vegetables (carrots, capsicums, tomatoes1, and potatoes) that varied in appearance (optimal versus suboptimal). The produce was selected based on the seasonal varieties available in New Zealand. Non-seasonal produce was not used as it could affect the level of sub-optimality. The produce was procured from a local green grocer who determined the (sub)optimality, similar to past research (Symmank et al., 2018). To keep track of children’s choices (optimal vs sub optimal), stickers with even or odd numbers were attached to the produce to indicate optimality. The children were provided with a shopping basket and shopping list to carry out the shopping activity. Each shopping list contained the name and quantity of the fruit and vegetable to be chosen.

Researchers recommend using stimuli when conducting focus groups with children to keep their attention and to help them express their thoughts (Krueger & Casey, 2009; Stewart & Shamdasani, 1990). The stimuli used for the group discussion included a suboptimal and optimal carrot and apple. These stimuli were used to initiate the discussions using one open- ended question, “which of these would you choose and why?” Using a real carrot and apple that varied in optimality helped anchor children’s discussion of their attitudes and perceptions of edibility based on appearance.

3.2.4. Procedure The study was piloted prior to data collection to refine the procedure. The pilot revealed that it was important to ask children questions at the point of their decision making during the shopping task. For the focus group discussions, replacing words such as ‘opinions’ with ‘thoughts’ helped children understand the questions better.

The participants were allotted into one-hour sessions according to their age (Table 3). Based on a random draw of shopping lists, the shopping activity required children to choose two quantities of a fruit and two quantities of a vegetable from a large assortment of the aforementioned produce displayed on a table. Field notes were taken on the way children made their choices (e.g., swapping, commenting, and/or careful inspection of the produce) and the participants were questioned about their behaviour while they made their choice (e.g.,

1Botanically tomato is a fruit. Legally, however, it is classified as a vegetable because consumers use them in savoury foods (Nix v. Hedden 149 (U.S. Supreme Court 1893))

“What type of apples are you looking for?”). The shopping activity lasted for approximately 10-15 minutes for every age group.

The focus group discussions followed the shopping activity. Each age group was divided to form a manageable number of focus group members comprising 6 to 11 children (Table 2), similar to past research with children (Bertol et al., 2017). The group discussion rules were explained, alongside additional information about the anonymity, confidentiality, recording of the session, and that there were no right or wrong answers. The focus group discussions were based on a pre-determined question protocol and were conducted by trained facilitators. Strategies were employed to include all participants, for instance, asking groups with dominant participants to raise their hands before answering and specifically asking quieter children questions directly. The group discussions were prompted by showing an optimal [A] and a suboptimal [B] carrot or apple and asking the participants to choose one. For example, “I’ve got two apples. This is Apple A and this is Apple B. Let us imagine that you can have one of them, which one would you pick?” upon providing an answer, the children were probed further to explain their choice. For example, “Why not B?” and “Why do you think that A is riper and fresher?” The discussions lasted approximately 25–35 minutes (see Table 3). The data collection took place on the school premises, the environment was familiar, which contributed towards children feeling at ease at the time of data collection (Gibson, 2007; Gibson; 2012; Krueger & Casey, 2009).

Table 3: Age groups used for data collection

Age group Total Number of focus Number of Duration groups children in each (minutes) focus group 5-6 year olds 13 2 7, 6 21, 23 7 year olds 19 2 9, 10 25, 24 8 year olds 22 2 11, 11 25, 26 9 year olds 18 2 9, 9 30, 29 10-11 year olds 25 3 9, 8, 8 36, 35, 35

3.2.5. Coding The qualitative data obtained comprised field notes, and video and audio transcripts. This data was transcribed verbatim, and content analysis was used to inductively code

responses into an exhaustive list of sub-themes, which were then merged into meaningful themes (Braun & Clarke, 2006; Elo & Kyngäs, 2008). The data was reviewed multiple times to ensure consistency across the themes. The themes identified were based on the appearance cues children used to perceive the edibility attributes and the acceptability of suboptimal fruits and vegetables. The justifications provided to explain why one type of produce was preferred over another type revealed the edibility attributes inferred from the appearance cues. Preferences for, or against, the suboptimal varieties were used to classify the appearance cues into either positive (acceptable) or negative (not acceptable) perceptions. A similar approach of using choice based preferences for determining either positive or negative attitudes has been used in earlier studies on suboptimal foods (de Hooge et al., 2017; Yue et al., 2009). In total, four themes were identified as perceptions of the appearance cues (see Table 4 theme definitions).

Table 4: Table of themes

Overarching Theme Definition Example theme Positive Negative Appearance Shape Shape perceptions include the acceptance or “I like how it is “I don’t like it cues rejection of misshaped produce along with twisted” cause it’s got a shape personifications to justify the reasons weird shape” for the acceptance or rejection.

Colour Colour perceptions include the perceptions “This I’ll take “I don’t like that of the colour saturation, discolorations and cause it is orange- because it is all bi-colourations used to infer edibility er” brown” perceptions of the suboptimal produce.

Blemishes Blemishes include the presence of “…it just means “I’m looking for superficial marks, scars and bruises on the that it’s scraped. one orange that outer surface of the suboptimal produce. I’d still eat the doesn’t have so whole thing” much dots on it.”

Size Size perceptions include the acceptance or “I went for big “It’s a bit too rejection of suboptimal produce that are ones because I small”

either too large or too small, or simply really like deviate from the average or moderate size. potatoes”

3.3. Results With the aim to provide a holistic account of how children perceive the appearance of suboptimal produce, the results compile the findings from both studies and present it as themes. The appearance cues are discussed in terms of how they were used in judging the produce - to either accept or reject the suboptimal produce. Thus reflecting either positive or negative attitudes based on the presence of the cue, and the edibility perceptions which were inferred from the appearance cues.

3.3.1. Shape perceptions Shape was the most frequently mentioned appearance cue for the suboptimal produce. Personal liking or preference for the produce in general, or specifically liking the shape defect, influenced children’s suboptimal choice. During the focus group discussions, Nate (8) said, “I like it, I like it how it’s bent because I like all sorts of carrots”. Annie (6), who chose a suboptimal carrot during the shopping activity, pointed to the misshaped end of the carrot and said, “I like that bit coming out of the bottom”. Shape defects imparted a unique appearance which led children to prefer suboptimal over optimal. For example, in the 10-11 year old group discussions, one of the girls said, “I like the ugly one (carrot)” and another girl added, “It’s different, it’s different and it’s twisted”.

Misshaped produce were perceived to resemble inanimate objects and even personified to have human-like characteristics. Such perceptions sparked interest in the misshaped produce. During the shopping activity, a child in the 5-6 year old group chose a suboptimal pear as she found the shape to resemble a phone, “It’s a phone! A mini phone!” Personifying misshaped produce into fun characters also led to positive taste inferences. For example, while shopping for pears, Minnie (6) personified the shape of a suboptimal pear to look like an alien, “It’s an alien! It’s yummy!” During the group discussions, children used these personifications to share their past experiences with buying and eating misshaped produce implying liking for misshaped produce. Isabel (9) exclaimed, “I buy “carrot people”! Once mum got this one that really-really looked like a person! (Laughs)”. Selena (6) recalled, “My pop had a carrot and they were two carrots stuck together like they were friends”. These experiences were used to derive positive taste perceptions. For example, some children felt that the taste would not be significantly different, as Isabel (9) stated, “I

46 would [eat it]… It won’t taste terrible. I-I tell you I have done that!” Likewise, Stan (6) explained, “I-I ate pears before, but I’m not sure if I’ve eaten a pear like that. But I know it will still taste the same because all pears in New Zealand will be the same because it doesn’t matter if it’s being turned [shape defect], it will still be yummy”.

Some children mentioned the shape defect to justify their rejection of misshaped produce. Personal liking for fruits and vegetables to adhere to the normal/typical shape reflected children's dislike for misshaped produce. During the shopping activity, Olly (8) swapped a suboptimal carrot for an optimal one because he wanted a straight carrot, “Yeah like straight ones”, then showing another misshaped suboptimal carrot he said, “This one I’ll definitely not take”. He explained this later during the group discussion, “Well I like every carrot, but-um I need to say that the B [suboptimal] one is quite bad because it’s bent and I like straight carrots.” [I: How come you like straight carrots better?] “Easy to eat!” Similarly, during the group discussions Tina (9) shared that she would not choose the suboptimal carrot because, “Carrot B is wonky. I don’t like wonky carrots because they are a different shape.” [I: What don’t you like about the different shape?] “Uh… Cause I’m very organised”.

A few children perceived shape defects to negatively affect taste, “I would eat [carrot] A, because A looks more yummy, and B would be, uh maybe, B is a little bit off- tasting”, said Ava (10) during the group discussions. Connotations of disgust was used to describe these negative taste perceptions: While shopping, two boys in the 5-6 year old group discussed why they would not choose a misshaped orange, “This is a bum (Laughs)! The skin would taste like a bum … It will still taste like a bum [on the inside]”. Shape defects were also used to infer safety. For example, during the shopping activity Adam (9) said when swapping a suboptimal orange for an optimal one, “There is a big crease so it might be bruised on the inside… It’s got that [the shape defect] there so it’s not going to be okay”.

Some children confessed that although the shape had little to do with the edibility of the produce, they would still reject it. For instance, Tom (11) shared with the focus group that he did not find the suboptimal carrot less nutritious, yet he rejected it, “I would choose A. Well, they both look healthy, but B looks different, it’s twisted, but there’s no difference in the healthiness”. Likewise, some children agreed during the group discussion that choosing misshaped produce is an irrational thing to do, “It looks pretty disgusting because of the bent (shape defect). I think if I could choose a disgusting looking one and a very smart one, I

47 would probably choose a smart one. It’s like you have a Christmas present, which would you choose…” (Boy, 7).

3.3.2. Colour perceptions The acceptance of suboptimal fruits and vegetables was linked with underlying positive colour perceptions. When shown an apple with green and yellow patches during the group discussions, the seven year olds relied on their past experiences that have shaped their preference for sour-tasting apples: “They’re really good, I like those”, “I’d buy all of them, yum!” and “It’s sour, yes sour…It’s good I want to eat it”. Previous taste experiences led children to confirm that colour deviations do not affect taste. For example, Betty (8) said, “I would choose either one cause to me every apple tastes the same” and Katie (8) clarified “I would eat both of them cause this one, it just looks different but tastes the same”.

Colour saturation and vibrancy of the produce was used to determine choice. During the group discussions, Teddy (6) compared the colour of the optimal carrot with that of a suboptimal carrot to justify his preference for the optimal carrot, “I would pick number A. It’s more orange-er because that one has got a little brown in it”. Similarly, in another focus group, a girl (9) stated, “It (the suboptimal apple) doesn’t look as appealing like the other (optimal) apple. It doesn’t look as bright”. When a fruit or vegetable did not have the most appropriate colour or pigment, it was perceived as not good enough. This was observed for produce which were bi-coloured. For example, Carl (8) commented on the colour “green” on several suboptimal produce while choosing produce to infer them as “bad”. For example, he told his friends while shopping, “Peppers, I know the difference that’s green and bad (pointing to a predominantly yellow suboptimal capsicum). And the green here (showing a suboptimal tomato) is bad, means it’s not fully grown yet and it has lots of green. That-that’s green and that’s got all the nasty bites in it.” Sage (9) compared the colour of apples to explain why she chose the most optimal (red) apple during the shopping task, “Because it’s quite red than the other [suboptimal apple] cause the other is quite green”. When these discolourations leaned towards brown, most children reacted negatively, and infered negative taste and safety perceptions which affected final choice, “Because it’s all brown it won’t taste that good” said Minnie (6) as she returned a suboptimal orange while shopping. Rob (5) picked up the same orange and said “It’s got brown, lots of brown because it’s mouldy” and put it back on the table.

3.3.3. Blemish perceptions Blemishes on suboptimal produce were largely perceived negatively. An instinctive dislike for fresh produce with blemishes made it easier to reject blemished produce. For example, during the group discussions Gabby (10) said she wouldn’t choose the suboptimal carrot because, “there’s little marks and it’s a little scarred”. During the shopping activity, Ken (7) mentioned, “I’m looking for one orange that doesn’t have so much dots on it. For me I don’t really like one’s with dots” and Wren (9) said, “These all (carrots) have cracks in them… probably I’m going to get ones without them”. The presence of blemishes affected taste perceptions, which in turn determined choice: “Cause I don’t like it when fruits have like those big bruises cause it means that they don’t taste very good”, explained Becky (7) while she chose the produce on her shopping list.

Suboptimal produce with blemishes were described as “ugly” and “disgusting” during the focus group discussions. For example, Tom (11) compared a suboptimal carrot with an optimal one, “One is really-really ugly because it has brown things on it, and it’s got scars on it. And the other one’s pretty” and Pete (10) supported Tom’s opinion, “I also think it is ugly because it looks really old and dirty cause it’s got all those spots in it. And then, the A looks like a normal fresh carrot”. Similarly, Steffi (7) said she would not choose a bruised apple, “Because it doesn’t look very appetising”.

Children also inferred the freshness of the suboptimal produce from the presence of blemishes. For example, during the shopping activity, Sean (8) said that he was “looking for ripe one’s… (picks up a suboptimal orange) No this is not ripe cause it’s got marks on the skin”. Many participants conveyed concerns about the safety of consuming suboptimal produce due to the presence of blemishes during the group discussions. For example, Ken (7) perceived a health risk from eating a slightly bruised apple, “…and you might get sick… Yeah cause it might have bugs in it”. Similarly, Sage (9) did not choose a suboptimal orange because she was certain that the blemishes made the orange unsafe to eat, “… cause this one has (points out to a marks on the outside)… I can see that it’s quite rotten on the inside”. The word “dirt” was also used to infer contamination or risk to food safety, “There could be dirt or things like that. It’s just on the outside but you don’t know what’s gross on the inside. So, I probably wouldn’t eat it” (Sarah, 11). Similarly, Aron (8) suspected the safety of consuming a blemished carrot, “Because it’s quite damaged and bacteria can get it”.

Children accepted blemished produce when they were regarded as the “loveable underdogs”. For example, during the focus group discussions a group of girls in the 10-11 year group insisted against the other group members that the suboptimal carrot was not ugly. One of them, Nadine (10), perceived the blemishes to add to its aesthetic appeal, “B is pretty…No B is cute! B is pretty! It’s pretty because it looks cute [because] it has scars on it”. Blemished produce was also accepted when the marks/bruises were perceived to not affect the edibility of the produce. During the group discussions a child in the 5-6 year old group evaluated the freshness of a suboptimal orange to counter argue: “Wait! I would still eat it because that doesn’t mean that it’s old, it just means that it’s scraped. I’d still eat the whole thing”. The past experience of eating blemished produce helped children confirm that even the presence of blemishes will not affect the taste of the produce, Boy (9) stressed during the group discussions: “…its food so why wouldn’t I eat it… why would it taste different? It’s just a carrot with marks on it”. Similarly, Bella (8) explained during the discussions, “It doesn’t really matter, it’s only the outside [of a blemished carrot] that’s damaged”.

3.3.4. Size perceptions References to size were made only during the shopping activity. Suboptimal sizes were considered acceptable depending on individual size preferences. For example, Jade (5) preferred smaller (suboptimal) pears, “I am looking for small pears, this (basket) is heavy”. Field notes from the observational study show that Hailey (8) used size as a parameter to choose the produce on her shopping list, irrespective of the other appearance cues: Hailey has to pick two potatoes and two lemons. She finds the potatoes, chooses one and says “big”. She chooses another one and says “big”. She then looks at the lemons and says “big” choosing the largest two of the lot. Hailey chose all suboptimal produce. The participants also preferred large sized produce especially when a fruit or vegetable was a personal favourite. Nate (8) explained why he chose very large suboptimal potatoes, “I got two big ones because I really like potatoes”.

With regards to negative size perceptions, small sized produce were considered the obvious rejects. For instance, Carl (8) compared the size of the two apples, “…and (the suboptimal apple) it’s smaller than that (the optimal) one” to explain why he preferred the optimal one and inferred that the smaller ones are less nutritious than larger ones, “It is small, doesn’t give you much protein but that, that’s bulgy and rich”. Another Girl (8) explained

50 why she swapped a small suboptimal carrot for a larger optimal one during the shopping task, “Well, it’s a bit small, so it won’t last me more”.

3.4. Discussion The results show that children use appearance cues, namely defects in shape, size, blemishes, and colour, to infer edibility and acceptability of suboptimal produce. More importantly, the findings reveal that although children largely reject produce that is blemished or brown, children are accepting of suboptimal produce that is misshapen or an atypical colour (other than brown). Furthermore, experience with consuming suboptimal produce was found to be a strong driver of acceptance and favourable taste perceptions of suboptimal produce. This is the first empirical study to show how children perceive suboptimal produce and the findings highlight opportunities for retailers to market suboptimal produce based on different appearance defects, a method recommended by past research (de Hooge et al., 2017).

Out of all the appearance cues, children were most tolerant of shape defects and least tolerant of blemishes, aligning with past research with adults who were found to be more willing to buy, and demanded the lowest discount for, a bent cucumber as opposed to a blemished apple (de Hooge et al., 2017). However, unlike adult samples (Loebnitz & Grunert, 2015; Loebnitz et al., 2015), most children instinctively used the extreme shape defects to personify misshaped produce into “fun” shapes and objects (e.g., “alien”, “phone”), to derive positive taste perceptions and express their preference for misshaped produce. This finding aligns with past research showing children’s vegetable consumption increases when cut into fun shapes (Olsen et al., 2012; Branen et al., 2002). The finding that children generally perceive misshaped produce as appealing and tasty, provides retailers with the opportunity to market such produce to children. Marketing misshaped produce as “different” confers an attribute of uniqueness, which adds value to the produce by giving them a personality, and allows consumers to sympathise with them as the “loveable underdogs” (Aschemann-Witzel, de Hooge, et al., 2017, thereby encouraging the purchase of suboptimal produce (Ketron & Naletelich, 2019). The Imperfect Picks is one such project that uses cartoon characters to encourage children to try suboptimal fruits and vegetables (Youth AgSummit, 2017). Retailers could do the same by using friendly cartoons of suboptimal produce to appeal to children along with marketing them as the “misfits” and ‘rebels’ (Louis & Lombart, 2018).

Size preferences for produce was a matter of personal preferences. Some children always chose large sized produce because it was considered a rational or normal thing to do, which could stem from how they have been normalised to choose produce in store (Pettersson et al., 2004). While some children in the youngest age group (5-6-year olds) preferred small sized produce, the older children perceived them to be of less value. This finding is opposite to the hypothesis that children would prefer smaller sized produce as fruits and vegetables are less preferred foods (Colapinto et al., 2007). Typically, consumers prefer larger portion sizes (Vermeer, Steenhuis, & Seidell, 2010) because of the greater value obtained for the price paid. Given that the underlying principal of choice likelihood is value perception (Zeithaml, 1988), retailers could sell larger-sized suboptimal produce as they are likely to be perceived to have better price value. Further, retailers could also sell small-sized produce as pre-bagged varieties to younger children who have smaller appetites (Bruhn, 1995). Therefore, retailers have the opportunity to appeal differently sized suboptimal produce to different young consumer cohorts.

In support of the assumption made, blemishes were the least tolerated appearance cue by most children as they were perceived to affect the freshness and safety of the produce. Likewise, previous literature supports that adults too perceive blemished fruit as unsafe to consume (de Hooge et al., 2017) and that improving value perception is imperative to increase its choice likelihood (Jaeger et al., 2016; Yue et al., 2009; Yue et al., 2007). Of importance, children who have been exposed to, or have eaten blemished produce, were less fussy about cosmetic blemishes and perceived that blemishes do not affect the taste. As food waste is the outcome of food devaluation and exaggerated safety concerns (Graham-Rowe et al., 2014; Watson & Meah, 2013), and given that some children who have had the experience of eating blemished produce perceived them positively goes to show that food experiences (such as eating blemished fruit) are valuable for demystifying food misperceptions. However, only a few children perceived blemishes to add to the aesthetic appeal of fresh produce. Thus, the marketing of blemished produce could be challenging for retailers and an alternative approach would be to repurpose them as ingredients in dishes (such as baked goods, smoothies, and salads) sold in-store (Havercamp, 2015).

Children used the chromatic brightness of the produce to determine choice, an appearance cue which is similarly used by adults (Lee et al., 2013). Discoloured/bi-coloured produce were perceived to taste sour, which some children liked (while others disliked) and likewise lead to its acceptance (or rejection), respectively. This finding partly supports the

52 assumption that children would prefer fresh produce with atypical colours. Another finding is that children who had experienced eating atypical coloured produce, or sour tasting fruits, were more likely to appreciate the perceived sour taste. Research finds repeated exposure to sour tasting fruits develops children’s liking for sour flavours (Daniel, 2016). Therefore, increasing children’s familiarity with discoloured produce could potentially improve taste perceptions. However, the presence of the colour “brown” and in some cases the colour “green” deemed produce as unacceptable regardless of experience. Thus, alongside previous research, the findings suggest that children have less stable colour preferences for fresh produce (Poelman & Delahunty, 2011) and retailers could therefore market discoloured (with the exception of green or brown discolorations) produce to children. The commercial success of selling discoloured produce as is would take long-term reformative policies that change consumer perceptions about atypically coloured produce (Schifferstein et al., 2018), in the meantime retailers would benefit from repurposing suboptimal produce with predominantly “brown” and “green” discolorations as ingredients in pre-prepared meals.

The limitations of this study are recognised. The data was collected from a single school. Owing to the sampling procedure, the number of children in the age groups were unequal, which posed as a disadvantage for comparing the findings. Additionally, the shopping activity set-up was relatively unnatural compared to the real in-store environment in an actual supermarket – it is therefore likely that other factors, such as store atmospherics, price, and parental/caregiver influence, may also affect final choice in the real world. Future research could carry out more realistic observations of families with children choosing produce in-store. Although past research notes consumer perceptions of suboptimal produce to socio-demographically differ (Rohm et al., 2017; Stuart, 2009a), no such differences were observed for the study which stands as a limitation. However, it would be worthwhile for future research to explore such socio-demographic differences in young consumers’ perceptions of suboptimal produce. Another potential limitation is that the data was self- reported from children. However, it is also recognised that studying consumer behaviour through the eyes of children provides honest and valuable insights into consumer decision- making processes (Gelman & Echelbarger, 2019a), given that children are induced into consumerism from an early age (Buckingham, 2007). While the study has recognised the advantages of having children who are of the same age range and within the same grade, it could also pose as a disadvantage because the possibility of children replicating or agreeing to answers by their peers to maintain a favourable image of themselves post data collection

53 remains. Future research could build on this research by conducting a much larger study across a wider age range to study the factors that lead to the socialisation of appearance-based preferences for fresh fruits and vegetables. The discussion around the sociological influences that train consumers to form appearance preferences should be further studied to understand the most effective ways to normalise consumers from a young age to be more accepting of suboptimal fruits and vegetables, which in the long run could address the problem of suboptimal fruit and vegetable waste. Future research could potentially explore these food socialisations, particularly with regards to the effects of suboptimal food exposure and increased food involvement. It is also recommended that research using more rigorous quantitative and/or experimental methods should be used to study children’s suboptimal food perceptions to validate these findings.

3.5. Implications Broader research implications are recognised. Although children were accepting of atypical shapes, sizes and colour, most produce with blemishes, or the colour “brown”, or in some cases “green”, were perceived as “dirty”, “bad”, “disgusting” or “ugly”, resonating with Douglas’ sociological philosophy on the classification of clean or pure and dirty or danger (Blichfeldt et al., 2015; Cappellini, 2009). Douglas' (2003) societal classification of clean and dirty can be applied to the suboptimal food waste context where produce that does not fit with the optimal/typical appearance are deemed “dirty”, “bad”, “disgusting” and “ugly”, need to be removed or in this case rejected, because the unfamiliar appearance renders the food unsafe or contaminated. The intolerance of natural defects in fruits and vegetables has little to do with the quality and edibility of the food (Stuart, 2009a). However, given that the social world uses the classification of dirty and clean (Douglas, 2003), sensitivity to appearance defects in fresh produce could originate from this sociological impact on the expectation of perfect-looking produce, which if not met, entails perceptions of inedibility, contamination, and distaste, and ultimately leads to the rejection of edible imperfect produce. In support, research finds that safety concerns about consuming foods with superficial packaging damage increases the rejection of foods in supermarkets (White, Lin, Dahl, & Ritchie, 2016) and children too consider food inedible and non-food when a question of contamination and distaste arises (Fallon et al., 1984). This rejection could also emerge from consumers’ “beauty is good” bias, wherein consumers perceive aesthetically appealing familiar foods to taste good (Wansink & Payne, 2010). For some children in this study, an atypical appearance alone sufficed for the rejection of the suboptimal produce irrespective of positive edibility

54 perceptions, thus reflecting the indoctrination of the “beauty is good” bias or, in this case, the “normal is acceptable” heuristic when making choices. It is therefore imperative to inform and reassure consumers that appearance defects in fresh produce have little to do with the safety and edibility of suboptimal produce.

Providing information about the safety and edibility of suboptimal produce has been found to significantly improve consumer acceptance (Bunn, et al., 1990; Yue, et al., 2009). For example, the New Zealand supermarket Countdown sells “The odd bunch” of suboptimal fruits and vegetables with a tagline “looks odd, tastes great” to reassure consumers that the suboptimal appearance does not affect taste (Love Food Hate Waste New Zealand, 2017). Consumer acceptance of atypical food is also reliant on supermarkets’ willingness to sell them (Devin & Richards, 2018; Osborn, 2016). Therefore, creating shelf space for produce with suboptimal appearance, along with effective communication of food waste avoidance and a guarantee of food quality, is constructive towards increasing suboptimal food familiarity and acceptance (Kulikovskaja & Aschemann-Witzel, 2017).

3.6. Conclusion Food waste is a sustainability problem with social, economic and environmental consequences (Cicatiello, Franco, Pancino, & Blasi, 2016; Gustavsson et al., 2011), thus it is important to avoid food waste to prevent its negative consequences in the near and distant future (Papargyropoulou et al., 2014). By understanding children’s perceptions of suboptimal foods, this paper has taken the first step suggested by previous research for the inclusion of a sociological understanding of food appearance preferences in the context of food waste (Block et al., 2016). The findings show that children use the same appearance cues as adults to perceive the edibility of suboptimal produce, but children emphasise these perceptions differently. Specifically, shape, colour, and size abnormalities were mostly perceived positively while at large, blemishes were perceived negatively. For the number of children who perceived suboptimal produce negatively, unfamiliarity was the main reason for the non- acceptance of suboptimal produce; conversely, the positive edibility perceptions emerged from previous experiences and exposure to suboptimal foods, which in turn developed into preference and liking. This suggests that appearance-based preferences for produce are socialised through exposure, which is recommended for future research to explore.

The novelty of appearance defects appealed to most children, which can be leveraged by retailers by targeting suboptimal foods to children (Marshall, 2014; Pettersson et al.,

2004). Retailers could gain from stronger brand associations and improved brand image from young consumers through such sustainability-driven initiatives (Loussaïef, Cacho-Elizondo, Pettersen, & Tobiassen, 2014). Hence, there lies immense potential in addressing the sustainability problem of suboptimal food waste through children, as they are more likely to accept them and also influence their families’ produce buying and consumption habits (Grønhøj, 2016; Wilson & Wood, 2004). Most communication and pricing strategies have limited impact on food valuation and choice, thereby making interventions that normalise suboptimal produce more effective (Aschemann-Witzel, 2018a). To leverage the movement towards improved value perception of suboptimal produce (e.g., change edibility misperceptions), it is imperative for retailers and the wider community to target younger children to train them into future consumers, who value food irrespective of appearance. The interventions could be applied through school-run and community programs that seek to increase children’s food engagement through growing and cooking food. For example, food activists are working to encourage children to accept suboptimal fruits and vegetables (Figueiredo, n.d.). Creating food experiences through suboptimal food exposure could increase familiarity and acceptance of suboptimal produce.

Chapter 4: Paper 2

Normalising the ‘Ugly’ to Reduce Food Waste: Exploring the Socialisations that Form Appearance Preferences for Fresh Fruits and Vegetables

Abstract Fruits and vegetables that fail to conform to an aesthetic standard are labelled suboptimal and are often devalued and ultimately discarded. Although consumers perceive suboptimal produce negatively, little is known about how these perceptions are formed and indeed the socialisation process behind them. Using 11 focus group discussions with New Zealand children aged 5-11 (N = 97), this study explores these socialisations. The results show that family practices around growing and repurposing suboptimal produce, learning about suboptimal produce waste, and acting on that knowledge when making produce choices, facilitates the acceptance of suboptimal produce. Alternatively, observations of parents’ produce choice behaviors, and parents’ instructions or norms for choosing, preparing, and eating produce socialise the rejection of suboptimal produce. The implications of the study show how environmental sustainability of the food waste problem could be effectively addressed if public policy moves towards strategies that ‘normalise’ suboptimal produce. The interventions recommended show how public campaigns would be more effective by targeting children, who are not only concerned about environmental sustainability, but also through their growing agency and positive pester-power may influence households to reconsider how food is valued.

Keywords: consumer behaviour, consumer socialisation, environmental sustainability, food waste, children

4.1. Background The Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations (FAO) estimates that one-third or 1.3 billion tonnes of food produced for human consumption is either lost or wasted annually (Gustavsson et al., 2011). In 2015, the United Nation’s set forth Sustainable Development Goal #12 which describes meeting “Target 12.3” to halve per capita food waste throughout the food supply chain by 2030 (United Nations, 2015a), a goal that was also

57 adopted by governments representing 50% of the world’s population and 50 of the world’s largest food companies (Flanagan et al., 2019).

Of all the food categories, the fruit and vegetable category (including roots and tubers) records the highest share of food waste at 45% (FAO, 2017b), a significant proportion of which could be avoided (Gunders, 2012). Of the many contributors (such as the perishable nature of fruits and vegetables), aesthetic or cosmetic standards are repeatedly mentioned as an important cause of fruit and vegetable waste (Beretta et al., 2013; Göbel et al., 2015; Gustavsson et al., 2011; Halloran et al., 2014; Lebersorger & Schneider, 2014; Parfitt et al., 2010; Porat et al., 2018). Fresh produce that consumers consider inappropriate or undesirable because it visually deviates from the normative appearance is called “suboptimal” (Aschemann-Witzel et al., 2015). Specifically, fruits and vegetables that have an atypical shape, size, colour, and/or have skin blemishes are deemed suboptimal because they are visually unappealing, however, when compared to ‘optimal’ produce they do not lack nutritional or hygiene qualities (Hyde et al., 2001). The lack of consumer demand to buy and consume produce that look atypical, and retailers’ opportunity to generate greater profits from perfect-looking produce, have propagated the use of cosmetic standards (Gunders, 2012; Stuart, 2009a). Retailers reject imperfect produce on the rationale that consumers expect produce to look perfect (Aschemann-Witzel et al., 2016; Block et al., 2016). Indeed, empirical research shows that consumers typically exhibit low willingness to buy and consume suboptimal produce (e.g., Jaeger et al., 2018; Rohm et al., 2017) because of poor quality perceptions, which inadvertently calls for price discounts, and arguably also facilitates food devaluation (Aschemann-Witzel, 2018a; de Hooge et al., 2017; Janssen, 2018; Loebnitz & Grunert, 2018; Loebnitz et al., 2015); although, selling suboptimal produce in a manner where buyers find value in purchasing and consuming them without price discounts continues to be challenging (Aschemann-Witzel, de Hooge, et al., 2017).

Although consumers are wary about the edibility of suboptimal produce, little is known about the factors contributing to this wariness. This article adopts a sociological approach to understand why consumers are averse to suboptimal produce. With public policy moving towards achieving greater food well-being (FWB) by fostering “a positive psychological, physical, emotional, and social relationship with food at both the individual and societal levels” (p. 6), a consumer food socialisation perspective allows researchers to understand how consumers engage with food and what shapes their relationship with food (Block et al., 2011). From a food waste perspective, greater FWB would imply that

58 consumers waste food less because food is valued more and not treated as a disposable commodity (Scott & Vallen, 2019). At a time when fruits and vegetables are an indispensable component of a healthy and disease-free life (Aune et al., 2017), finding solutions that may encourage consumers to value, accept, and not waste suboptimal produce is necessary. Indeed, if suboptimal produce is saved from landfills, it could potentially meet global hunger and nutritional needs (Royte, 2016), thereby achieving the food waste reduction target and greater FWB.

Despite efforts to reduce food waste, researchers now reconcile that waste behaviours are complex (Quested et al., 2013) and are often embedded in the social and material contexts of everyday life (Evans, 2011). This underlines the need to understand food waste from a sociological lens (Southerton & Yates, 2015). Whilst past literature has taken an empirical approach to profile consumers who are willing to accept suboptimal produce (e.g., Loebnitz et al., 2015) and to test various marketing techniques to sell suboptimal produce in-store (e.g., Cooremans & Geuens, 2019; van Giesen & de Hooge, 2019), there is a significant dearth of research exploring the socialisations which might help to explain consumer suboptimal produce avoidance and acceptance behaviour. Further, most food socialisations (including food appearance preferences) are developed in childhood and persist through adulthood (Gelman & Echelbarger, 2019b). This paper therefore explores children’s experiences with fruit and vegetable appearance to understand the socialising factors that form appearance preferences for fresh fruit and vegetables. Research questions are: (1) What are the socialisations that contribute to the acceptance of suboptimal produce? and (2) What are the socialisations that contribute to the rejection of suboptimal produce?

4.2. Food Socialisations Food appearances are significant cues from which quality inferences are drawn, which are then used to predict choice (Cardello, 1994; Steenkamp, 1990). This is exemplified for fresh fruits and vegetables because they are either sold loose or with transparent packaging, leaving appearance as the sole criteria for quality evaluations (Deng & Srinivasan, 2013). Thus, retailers have (for a long time) used cosmetic standards to provide consumers with impeccable produce to represent the supreme quality of food products they offer (Fulponi, 2006). This intentional invisibility of suboptimal fruits and vegetables has arguably helped form distrust towards suboptimal produce. As consumers have grown more distant from the foods they consume and food systems have become more institutionalised and structured,

59 food is less valued (Block et al., 2016), altogether assisting in turning a blind eye to the waste that is occurring.

Consumer food preferences are rooted in familiarity, especially for unfamiliar fruits and vegetables (Birch & Marlin, 1982; Rozin, 2005; Tuorila et al., 1994). The effect of familiarity has been seen for suboptimal produce as well. For example, Yue et al. (2007) showed that consumers who grew apples and purchased them regularly were more willing to accept blemished fruit. Similarly, children who were exposed to and had the experience of eating suboptimal fruits and vegetables were less likely to perceive cosmetic defects to affect quality attributes (Makhal, Thyne, Robertson, & Mirosa, 2020). At the store level, consumers are more likely to choose suboptimal products if they are familiar with the labelling scheme used to market them (Aschemann-Witzel et al., 2018a). Hence, familiarity ties in strongly with food socialisations, which is a product of the food environment one is raised in (Rozin, 1977).

The complex nature of food waste behaviours requires that a broader sociological context of waste behaviours is explored (e.g., Evans et al., 2013; O'Brien, 2013). Thus, researchers advocate applying social practice theories to explain why food waste exists when it is environmentally, socially, and economically deplorable (Ganglbauer et al., 2013). From a broader sociological standpoint, Evans et al. (2013) highlight the geo-political and economic policies of the post-war rationing period (the 1950’s) which propelled food supply (through food production) without taking demand as an upper ceiling for supply limits. This led to surplus food production, excess food availability, and lower food prices, which altogether made food a disposable commodity. Hence, O'Brien (2008) calls the modern world “rubbish societies”. These factors, among others, have since engendered a culture of food devaluation and waste (see Evans et al., 2013). A similar argument has been used for suboptimal produce: producer organisations and retailers have been blamed for endorsing perfect-looking produce which has trained consumers’ preferences for produce that fit a specific appearance aesthetic (Devin & Richards, 2018, Osborn, 2016). This training reflects the socialisation of appearance preferences. Consumer socialisation is fundamentally a learning process of acquiring the relevant knowledge, skills, and attitudes to function as a consumer in the marketplace (John, 1999). Exploring consumer socialisation is useful in understanding how preferences form (Ekström, 2006). Similarly, understanding food socialisations uncovers how food preferences form. Parents play a key role in moderating the types of food children are exposed to, which may affect the food choices people make throughout their lives. For

60 example, increasing exposure to different types of fruits and vegetables early on in childhood sustains fruit and vegetable preferences into adulthood (Connell, Finkelstein, Scott, & Vallen, 2016). This means that consumers are hardwired to keep going back to what is familiar. Therefore, food socialisations influence how consumers learn to perceive and value food.

Arguably, consumers are exposed to the appearance of fresh produce during food consumption, cooking or food preparation, growing produce at home, and grocery shopping (Burton & May, 2016). Research shows that when families facilitate children’s active engagement in such activities, it increases fruit and vegetable familiarity, liking, and consumption (Burton & May, 2016; Chu et al., 2014), paralleling greater FWB (Scott & Vallen, 2019). Family food practices help socialise what is considered normal, which eventually leads children to follow the family’s and/or society’s standardised consumption practices (Donovan, 2016). The socialisation process results from simply observing how family members behave (observational learning/implicit food socialisation) or by following instructions set out by parents and family members (instructional learning/ explicit food socialisations) (Block et al., 2011). This learning leads to beliefs, values, attitudes, and preferences being internalized, eventually forming normative beliefs (Moore, Wilkie, & Lutz, 2002). For example, consumers who are more food involved, waste less food as opposed to those who are less food involved (Mallinson et al., 2016). Explicit socialisation also happens through learning and acquiring information. For instance, providing information about food waste avoidance is effective in increasing suboptimal food choice in-store (Aschemann- Witzel, 2018a; Aschemann-Witzel et al., 2018a). Similarly, knowledge and awareness about sustainability issues result in children’s use of positive pester power to influence family consumption practices at home (O’Neill & Buckley, 2019). As children’s involvement in the family’s food decisions has increased (Ekström, 2010; Marshall, O'Donohoe, & Kline, 2007), their voices are being increasingly heard by parents, governments, and researchers (Gram, 2015; Gram & Grønhøj, 2016). We are witnessing global campaigns (such as ‘Fridays for Future’) spearheaded by child activists whose knowledge and concern about the environment is influencing government policies around the world (https://www.fridaysforfuture.org/about). This research, therefore, explores through children’s own voices how appearance preferences for fresh fruits and vegetables are socialised, thereby demonstrating how these affect the rejection and acceptance of suboptimal produce.

4.3. Methodology A qualitative research design was deemed most appropriate to explore the socialisation of appearance preferences for fresh produce (Gummesson, 2005). Focus group discussions were conducted with children aged 5-11. Focus groups are useful with children because the group setting allows children to bounce ideas off each other and build on other’s opinions (Gibson, 2007; Gibson, 2012), without feeling the pressure to answer every question. The study had ethical approval from the University of Otago and the school, and the child participants and their parents had given their written and informed consent. To reduce selection bias, participants were recruited from a large (approximate enrolment of 500 students annually), co-educational, central primary school in the South Island of New Zealand, where the school’s teachers distributed the information sheets and consent forms to students. To prevent response bias, children were told that the study was about their preferences for fruits and vegetables. To help children feel at ease we collected data on the school’s premises, a familiar environment, allowing free expression of knowledge, experiences, and perceptions (Morgan, Gibbs, Maxwell, & Britten, 2002). This study is part of a larger research project on children’s fruit and vegetable appearance preferences.

4.3.1. Sample and Stimuli Of the 170 information and consent sheets distributed, 97 children (≈ 57%; 46 boys, 51 girls) returned the forms. To group children by age, parents were asked to provide their child’s age on the consent forms. In total, the sample comprised 11 focus groups, including two groups of five to six year olds (n = 7 and 6 respectively), two groups of seven-year olds (n = 9 and 10 respectively), two groups of eight-year olds (n = 11 and 11 respectively), two groups of nine year olds (n = 9 and 9 respectively), and three groups of ten to eleven year olds (n = 9, 8, and 8 respectively). The focus group sizes were similar to those conducted with children in past research (Bertol et al., 2017). Stimuli (suboptimal varieties of a carrot, apple, pear and banana) were used as cues during the discussions (see figure 2) to help anchor the discussions to the topic (Kennedy et al., 2001; Krueger & Casey, 2009; Stewart & Shamdasani, 1990).

Figure 2: Suboptimal fruits and vegetables used for the focus group discussions (Clockwise from left to right - carrot, pear, banana, and apple)

4.3.2. Procedure A semi-structured question protocol was designed and pilot-tested with children aged between 5 and 11. This helped with identifying language that was familiar to children, e.g., using ‘looks’ instead of ‘appearance’. The questions focused on situations where children are exposed to fresh produce. Specifically, questions pertained to family practices around the purchase (e.g., Do you go shopping for fruits and vegetables with mum or dad? How do you choose produce in-store? What do mum or dad say when you are choosing produce?); procurement and use (e.g., Do you grow fruit or veg at home? Can you share some of your experiences with growing produce at home? Do some of them turn out like this (show stimuli)? What do you do with them?); and consumption of fresh fruits and vegetables (e.g., What do you do with bruised/wonky fruit and vegetables at home?). At the end of the interview children were also asked about their knowledge about food waste (e.g., what do you think about food waste? What have you learnt in school/from your parents?”). The semi- structured protocol ensured consistency, while also allowing flexibility for respondents to freely express themselves (Ghauri, 2005). The focus groups were facilitated by trained moderators who are experienced with working with children and ensured every member got a

63 chance to answer questions. The facilitators probed children to explain their answers further, to gather a richer understanding of their experiences. Questioning was ceased when knowledge saturation was reached, and the themes discussed were being repeated. The focus group discussions were conducted during two school days within an hour slot allocated to every age group. Upon the arrival of the participants, the instructions for the group discussion were explained in addition to assuring anonymity and confidentiality. Hence, the results are reported using fictitious names. The focus group discussions lasted between 25-40 minutes approximately.

4.3.3. Data Analysis The focus group discussions were transcribed verbatim, and thematic analysis was undertaken to identify themes (Braun & Clarke, 2006; Saldana, 2009). Initially, the transcripts were thoroughly read multiple times after which the raw data was coded allowing for general topics and themes to emerge from the data. Following this, a more focussed closed coding scheme was used to identify an exhaustive list of sub-themes (Corbin, 2008). These sub-themes were then merged into broader and meaningful themes. This inductive approach revealed themes that serve to specificallly answer the research questions representing (1) socialisations that lead consumers to accept suboptimal produce and (2) socialisations that lead consumers to reject suboptimal produce (see figure 3 and 4 for an overview).

4.4. Results and Discussion The findings reveal a total of six major themes related to socialisations of appearance preferences for fresh produce. These are separated into two groups: first those related to accepting and valuing suboptimal produce and second those which seem to encourage young consumers to reject and devalue suboptimal produce.

4.4.1. Socialisations that contribute towards the acceptance of suboptimal produce The four themes discussed here represent the ways exposure to, and familiarity with, suboptimal fruits and vegetables can be increased, leading the way to their acceptance and use. An overview of the themes uncovered is presented in figure 3

Figure 3: Thematic representation of the socialisations that contribute towards the acceptance of suboptimal produce

4.4.1.1. Growing produce at home

Children who were more familiar with growing produce in their home environment, appeared to be generally more accepting of suboptimal produce. For example, Marcus (10) said he grows, “spring onions, lemons and chives” and added, “I help out quite a lot, and I

65 like to water them a lot”. Similarly Tim (9) said that he has the role of, “… the spotter for the potatoes”. Such gardening projects help improve children’s attitudes towards fresh produce (Ratcliffe, Merrigan, Rogers, & Goldberg, 2011; Parmer, Salisbury-Glennon, Shannon, & Struempler, 2009), which in turn increases fruit and vegetable consumption (Heim, Stang, & Ireland, 2009). Of importance to the present study, Yue et al. (2007) reported that adults who grew their own produce are more tolerant of blemished produce. Speaking about her experience, Alice (10) mentioned, “The strawberries grown at home had little clumps of strawberries coming out of it (laughs). I did eat it, it was very good!” and Tim (9) recalled, “We have lots of bendy carrots at home. My grandad grows them and we always clean out the dirt from that split very carefully, but they are very good. My grandad gardens at home and my grandma always cooks whatever he grows”. Likewise Stan (6) remembered, “Last year we got a little carrot plant, and one of the carrots was yellow, and it was fun. Me and my brother ate [it] and it tasted so yummy!” The current findings show that for children too, growing fruits and vegetables at home not only exposes them to suboptimal produce, but also that when the suboptimal produce is eaten, it is accepted and perceived positively. Despite the imperfect appearance, some children believed home-grown produce to be superior to store- bought ones in terms of taste and freshness. For example, Aron (9) and Betty (8) explained, “they [home-grown produce] are fresher, and they often taste better” and “…to me always fruit from home are fresher”, respectively. Similarly, Maria (10) said, “They look worse but they are nicer”.

These experiences helped children learn that appearance has little to do with quality – thus underlining the role of exposure and familiarity leading to the acceptance of suboptimal produce (Aschemann-Witzel, 2018a). Public policy has prescribed transforming urban spaces with community gardens and school gardening projects as a means to enhance consumers’ nutritional knowledge and FWB (Block et al., 2011; Parmer et al., 2009; Ratcliffe et al., 2011). As consumers are more likely to eat the produce they grow (Kortright & Wakefield, 2011; Gibbs et al., 2013), this paper suggests that growing fresh fruits and vegetables impacts how young consumers learn to value food, leading the way for more consumers to accept, buy, and consume suboptimal produce as opposed to rejecting and discarding them. Indeed past research shows that children who partake in gardening activities are more likely to eat different types of fruits and vegetables (Heim et al., 2009; Ratcliffe et al., 2011). Some children were surprised that although produce grown at home looked imperfect, they tasted better and fresher than the supermarket ones: “… when we had silverbeet for dinner, I got

66 some out of the garden, and then dad cooked it. The garden ones were spotty. So we also cooked the one we got from the supermarket, and the one from my dad’s garden tasted much better. That’s weird!” (Brian, 8). This may be because impeccable appearance has long been associated with fresh fruit and vegetable quality (Imram, 1999). Therefore, growing produce at home challenges pre-existing ‘appearance-quality’ normative beliefs and reconfigures/re- socialises consumers’ edibility perceptions.

4.4.1.2. Repurposing suboptimal produce

Repurposing food is one of the best ways to prevent household food waste (Cappellini & Parsons, 2012; Stancu, Haugaard, & Lahteenmaki, 2016). The same applies to suboptimal fruits and vegetables, as these can be repurposed into soups and various baked goods (Neff, Kanter, & Vandervijvere, 2015). Family practices around repurposing suboptimal produce is therefore important for normalising suboptimal produce. Repurposing suboptimal fruit, and in particular, bananas into various baked goods is a regular family practice: “We always make banana choc chip muffins with the bananas we don’t use; we put them in the freezer for another day” (Adele, 9). As it is a common family practice to bake with brown bananas, children are aware about different baked goods that brown bananas could be turned into ranging from “banana bread” (Pete, 10), to “banana cookies” (Steffi, 7), to “sugar scones” (Taz, 7). Importantly, children’s knowledge about repurposing suboptimal bananas could be because children tend to participate more with baking than cooking. For example, when asked about their participation with food preparation, most children admitted: “I do help with baking, not cooking” (Luna, 11) and “I don’t really help with dinner, but I help when we’re making cookies” (Hattie, 7). Children’s participation in baking, therefore, allows parents and caregivers to teach children about the different ways of repurposing suboptimal produce: “I like baking, and my mother says it’s [brown bananas] good for baking”, said Anita (7) and “I usually give them to my grandma to make banana bread, or I put them in the freezer cause they’ll last longer. It depends on what we want to do. Sometimes we’ll make stuff with them, and otherwise, we’ll just eat them. It does turn black, but it doesn’t matter”, explained Joy (9). Children, therefore, find value in suboptimal bananas, even preferring them over the optimal ones: “They are better bananas because they’re better in banana cake” (Lydia, 5), by perceiving them to be tastier: “The bruises taste nice and sweet” (Jaden, 9) and “I just eat it, it’s even yummier” (Bonny, 10), and healthier: “…we get bananas [for school lunches] that are a bit bruisy because me and her [friend] think that they’re the healthiest” (Mia, 9).

In comparison, children exhibited limited to no knowledge about repurposing the other fruits and vegetables shown. Repurposing them as ingredients in smoothies was the only other way children were aware of repurposing other suboptimal produce. For instance, Liam (11) said, “Mum would just make it [carrot] into a smoothie” and Larry (8) mentioned, “Cool. I’ll put it [apple and pear] into a milkshake”. This limited knowledge may be because families do not repurpose the other suboptimal produce as much as the brown bananas, or do not include children in the process of repurposing them. For example, suboptimal fruits could be used to make jams and chutneys, sweet pies, and fruit paper; and suboptimal vegetables could be used as ingredients in soups, curries, and savoury pies (Stuart, 2009b). However, for families who are time-poor it could be more convenient to discard the produce rather than invest the time to repurpose them (Mallinson et al., 2016).

Marketing strategies that have been applied to date include creating shelf space for suboptimal produce for greater visibility and bolstering retail sales through price discounts (Lombart et al., 2019). However, these strategies appeal to more deal-prone consumers and arguably devalues suboptimal produce due to other optimal products being priced higher (connoting better quality) (Raak et al., 2017). For better well-being, it is important that fresh produce (irrespective of appearance) is valued and becomes an integral part of family meals (Scott & Vallen, 2019). For this it is recommended that public policy now steers towards familiarising consumers with the potential uses of suboptimal produce. From a food socialisation perspective, it takes repeated exposures for food preferences to form for novel fruits and vegetables (Connell et al., 2016; Heath et al., 2011). Similarly, this theme shows that the lack of familiarity with the practice of using the other suboptimal produce meant they were less preferred as children were less knowledgeable about repurposing them. This has implications for policy makers (such as, Love Food Hate Waste) who use food influencers, such as popular celebrity chefs, to influence consumer choices at the household level. For example, Jamie Oliver brought food standards to public notice on his cooking show informing families about how they could use otherwise discarded produce and play a part in reducing suboptimal food waste (Bell, Hollows, & Jones, 2017). Thus using such opinion leaders may help familiarise, popularise, and normalise the use of different types of suboptimal produce in recipes for everyday family meals.

4.4.1.3. Allowing choice autonomy

Grocery shopping as a family provides children with opportunities to execute their consumer power by making choices for themselves and/or on the behalf of the family (Gram & Grønhøj, 2016; Marshall, 2014). The older participants in this study (10-11 years) reported that on such grocery shopping trips, parents allow them the autonomy to choose the produce they like: “I help my dad whenever he needs something, and I get the fruit and vegetables for him. I usually tell him what fruit we need for the week, and then I choose some of them, and he chooses the rest” (Nadine, 10). This autonomy gives children the opportunity to choose produce that are typically not preferred by other family members. Nadine (10) continued, “I like to get interesting produce. And then my dad picks perfect looking ones for my brothers cause they don’t like the one’s I choose” and Cathie (10) added, “I do the same. I always take the wonky ones and I think they are cute!” Similarly, Tom (11) stated, “If they [parents] tell me to get something I run across aisles and get them… The fruit and veg, I usually pick randomly, usually whatever ones that are the closest to reach… I don’t check how it looks”. On probing into what influences children to not differentiate produce based on appearance, awareness about suboptimal food waste was mentioned. For example, Maria (10) mentioned, “We’ve learned that sometimes some countries in the world don’t get food any time, but then we still have our food, but then we reject them, they could be eaten”. Educating children and conversing with them about social and environmental issues empowers them to take meaningful action (Mackey, 2012). Likewise, educating and sustaining conversations about food waste may potentially empower children to play an active role in the public discourse on food waste (Rodgers, 2005). Globally, school students have called for strikes to influence policy makers to consider climate change in their policy making and implementation (Thunberg, 2019). Therefore, it is imperative for public policy to engage the younger audience by not only spreading awareness about food waste, but also educating them about how they can play a part in the fight against food waste.

4.4.1.4. Learning about food waste

Learning about food waste mostly takes place from school and through parents. Research shows that children worldwide are highly concerned for the environment (Francis & Davis, 2015), who as future consumers will bear the consequences of the unsustainable choices made now (Donovan, 2016). In this regard, the participants expressed strong views about suboptimal food waste explaining that it is “wrong” and “bad”.

In school, children learn about food waste through lessons, movies, and projects. Marcus (11) mentioned, “We learnt it last year. We had to make a home enquiry and write about it and make a website on food waste in our home”. Such projects helped children fathom the scale of food and resource waste: “We learnt that one in three slices of bread are wasted! One in three! When you’re making toast, one will go into the bin!” said Isabel (9) and Mia (9) added, “With things like beef, if you throw it out then you’re actually throwing out like half of your grain because cows eat a lot of grain”. Children mostly recalled the social costs of food waste from what they have learnt in school. For example, Jade (5) mentioned, “…there are a lot of people in the world who are really-really hungry and haven’t got enough to eat”. Hence, most children mention about food donations “…give it to people who’d eat it” (Luna, 11). Children considered wasting food as a waste of the effort to grow produce. Millie (8) called this, “Wasting growing”. In comparison, only one child (Bridget, 8) mentioned about the environmental cost of food waste: “…it’s just killing the environment”. Of importance to this study, children also expressed concerns about suboptimal produce waste. Becky (7) expressed, “It’s just sad and it’s a bit rubbish that like throwing away half-half- quarter of fruits and veggies and not using it. Like farmers and rich supermarkets can keep them if they want… There is always someone who will buy!” Ella (9) elaborated on similar views, “… There’s just so much food waste in the dumps. You know a lot of bananas are thrown away cause they’re green and brown, but you know the skin does not matter. Why not just have it in the store?” To this Craig (9) added, “That’s such a waste of bananas… Some fruits like mango take very long to grow… When you buy mangoes from the store, it actually takes a very long time, longer than a cow, to grow” This shed light on the scale of unnecessary waste caused by appearance standards. For example, Bill (10) explained, “A big percentage of bananas are thrown away because they don’t look very curved like a banana does. Like you don’t need bananas to be curved to taste good!” Likewise Adam (9) stated, “We learnt [in school about standards] heaps of fruits from orchards are not sold because they look bad. That’s just a waste, there’s people and children who don’t have enough and we are just fussy with the looks”. As young consumers express strong environmental concerns, policy makers would benefit by highlighting the environmental effects of suboptimal food waste to younger audiences, who by their familial and current societal influences could be change makers in getting more people to value food irrespective of the appearance. To bring change at the household level, parents could also be involved in school projects. Adam (9) recalled: “We did it in class, and they made us watch a documentary with

70 my mum. We had to choose a fact and then we had to do a poster about it on why we should be actually using them instead of throwing them out. We also learned about standards. We also learnt that people waste more food than they are actually eating”. Knowledge acquired in schools is shared and practiced at home: “Sometimes on your food it says the best-before date. You shouldn’t always go by the best-before date. It means that it’s best before but it could be still fine at that time to eat… Earlier we would throw away the best-before food but now we check it is okay to eat” (Joy, 9). Food waste awareness made children globalise the consequences of locally wasted food: “if we just throw vegetables away then the people across the world, like in South America - I saw on the news at home that she was twelve, and she looked like a baby, she was really skinny and that’s because we are throwing away food. It’s bad!” (Nelly, 7). Food waste was also understood as a paradoxical problem as Wayne (9) explained, “I’ve noticed that the wealthier countries are usually the ones that waste more food, despite New Zealand having many homeless people, we’ve still got a lot of food waste”. The participants shared that at home their parents’ concern about food waste pertained to the cost and/or the time they invest in preparing food for the family. For example, Tim (9) mentioned, “My parents say that food waste is bad because they can’t waste time” and Alice (10) said, “Cause you’re wasting money… they say don’t waste money”. Children recall their parents getting angry when food is wasted at home. Brian (7) recounted his parents scolding his sister for wasting food, “All they say … ‘Don’t you dare throw it out (in a strict tone)!’ because she throws them all out. Then my parents get really mad at her cause that’s food waste”. Lisa (9), similarly added, “Honestly, my parents just say eat that or you’re going to bed. Parents say it costs money so it’s a waste of money”. As a result, children have learnt how to save food (leftovers) for later or for other family members: “I would put it in the fridge for dad’s lunch or mums lunch” (Bella, 8) and “I just save it for in case I’ll need any more after dinnertime” (Teddy, 6). Learning about food waste conveys the message that food is valuable and should not be wasted. Being aware about the different facets of the food waste problem can empower children to take actions in their own way to help reduce waste, such as choosing suboptimal produce for oneself. Further, discussing sustainability issues in school is effective in continuing such conversations in the home (Larsson, Andersson, & Osbeck, 2010; O’Neill & Buckley, 2019), and potentially socialising families to value food and reduce food waste.

4.4.2. Socialisations that contribute to the rejection of suboptimal produce The two themes discussed here are predominantly sociological barriers to acceptance of suboptimal produce. These are (1) observations of parents’ produce choice behaviours in retail stores and (2) instructions from parents about how produce should be chosen, prepared, and consumed. See Figure 4 for an overview of the themes.

Figure 4: Thematic representation of the socialisations that contribute towards the rejection of suboptimal produce

4.4.2.1. Observations of parents’ produce choice behaviour in-store

Children spoke about how their parents choose fresh fruits and vegetables. Their recollections demonstrate that parents use appearance cues such as colour, shape, blemishes and firmness to determine produce choice in-store. For example, Brian (8) mentioned, “My parents say about the colour. So usually for apples they usually choose ones that are like red and nice”. Similarly, Lina (8) spoke about firmness, “The mandarins, we always look for harder than squishy”. Children understand why parents use these strategies. Sarah (11) said, “For apples, my dad looks for ones that are not soft so that they are hard... so that you know they are crunchy”. Children suggested that parents choose produce that look perfect. Wynn (7) stated, “They just get the ones that look good. If there were little things on it and weren’t looking nice, they would take the nice ones instead”. Based on their observations of how parents choose produce, some children replicate these behaviours by “always taking time and checking if they are all perfectly good” (Liam, 11). For instance, Sage (9) mentioned, “If there’s lemons or oranges, I see which ones are the orange-est or the hardest, cause then you know that they could be a bit harder to peel but they are ripe on the inside” and Minnie (6) said, “I pick the good ones. The ones that aren’t bruised… If you had tomatoes, you need them hard enough before you can eat them because otherwise they’ll go too squishy when you try to eat them”. These examples show that like their parents, children use similar appearance-based strategies when making produce choice in-store. This demonstrates observational learning (Bandura, 1977), showing how norms around desirable appearance characteristics for produce are modelled, practiced, and potentially normalised.

4.4.2.2. Parental norms conveyed through instructions for procuring, preparing, and consuming suboptimal produce

Parents instruct children on how produce should be chosen in-store. This is mainly with respect to size, “I’m told choose the big capsicums so I can get more” (Jade, 5) and ripeness, “Mum and dad tell me to look for the carrots that are ripe. I just look at them and tell they are ripe” (Matt, 6). Understandably, children are taught how to identify ripe produce, with most children referring to firmness. For example, Becky (7) said, “Mum tells me that kiwifruits are usually hard so if you squeeze them and they’re soft then don’t choose them” and Scott (10) said, “With apples, what me and my mom do is we grab the apple, we like feel it, and if it’s hard and it’s not squishy, it’s good”. Similarly, colour and blemishes are another appearance criteria parents have taught children to use when selecting produce. For instance,

Bridget (8) mentioned, “Mum tells me to choose no bruises and just green or red apples”. In this manner grocery shopping trips with parents serve to directly socialise appearance preferences for fresh produce. Similarly, when preparing and eating fresh produce, food appearance ideals are conveyed to children. Children’s participation in cooking with parents involve peeling and cutting fruits and vegetables: “I help with peeling the carrots all the time” (Sean, 8). As suboptimal produce connotes inedibility (Aschemann-Witzel et al., 2015), strategies such as peeling and cutting off sections of the produce show how by removal, the perceived edibility risk or disgust is managed, presenting an opportunity for parents to show children what is or is not acceptable for consumption. For example, Adele (9) said, “I cut up all the vegetables and sometimes help mum cut up fruit also. I tell my mum if there’s like a mark or bruise cause sometimes that can be bad or spoilt… Mum sometimes tells me its fine and sometimes she cuts ‘em off” and Tina (7) mentioned, “I peel the veggies and mum chops them. If there’s like little marks or something she says it’s bad to have them in the food”. These instructions convey to children norms around family food preparation, specifically parts of produce to keep and parts to discard. Edibility perceptions are subjective and norm-driven, sometimes even unique to certain households (Nicholes, Quested, Reynolds, Gillick, & Parry, 2019). Similarly, children are also cognizant of such norms around preparing and consuming produce. For instance, Tom (11) mentioned, “We always peel carrots if it’s for a meal, but it is okay to not peel them for lunch boxes” and Edna (7) added, “I think you should peel all your veggies, we always do”. Alternatively, Cathie (10) said, “Carrots don’t need to be peeled! We don’t peel carrots”. When produce grown in the garden is suboptimal in appearance, some families resort to feeding it to pets and birds, or composting implying that the produce is unfit for human consumption. For instance, when shown suboptimal produce (stimuli items), Pete (10) mentioned, “We’ll put it in the compost” and Sarah (11) said, “We give it to my bunnies, or I just chuck them in the bin”. Similarly, Selena (6) stated, “When me and my mum pick strawberries from the garden, we leave the bad-looking strawberries for the birds to eat” These examples show how the practice of not consuming produce with suboptimal appearance conveys desirable appearance norms for consuming fruits and vegetables. Everyday food routines and practices influence food waste generation (Evans, 2012; Evans et al., 2013; Schanes, Dobernig, & Gözet, 2018; Watson & Meah, 2013), thus highlighting the need to identify the socialising factors embedded in these food-related practices that cause food waste (e.g., Ganglbauer et al., 2013). For example, food planning

74 and shopping routines significantly influence the amount of food waste generated (e.g., Stefan et al., 2013). These practices and routines also affect how consumers acquire/learn and adopt edibility perceptions (Waitt & Phillips, 2015; Watson & Meah, 2013). The norms around keeping the perfect and removing/discarding imperfect resounds with how society perceives the atypical as undesirable and potentially dangerous (Douglas, 2003); thereby removing (or discarding) the imperfect means avoiding any perceived unwanted risks (Cappellini, 2009). Past research has shown that suboptimal produce is less preferred due to perceived edibility risks (e.g., Loebnitz & Grunert, 2018). This study highlights how family food practices transfers appearance-edibility norms from parent to child establishing how produce should be chosen, prepared, and consumed (Moore et al., 2002). In other words, these practices socialise appearance preferences for fresh produce. Children pick up norms early (Marshall, 2014), as they are capable of replicating adult behaviours as early as age three (Drenten et al., 2008), exhibiting shared values and beliefs with parents (Grønhøj & Thøgersen, 2009). From the sociological standpoint, this demonstrates that appearance preferences for perfect produce are socialised through the routines and practices of one’s food environment. By observing and modelling behaviours that are considered ‘normal’ resonates with Bandura’s (1977) social learning theory. Thus showing how appearance preferences and edibility perceptions are steeped in the social environment where children observe, and model the behaviours of others (Grønhøj, 2016). This supports the accidental or unintentional nature of food waste behaviours (Block et al., 2016), a reflection of the conspicuous consumption culture (Ganglbauer et al., 2013), and that everyday food-related norms and practices influence food-valuation (Watson & Meah, 2013).

4.5. Conclusions Persuading consumers to choose and prefer suboptimal produce to reduce avoidable food waste is still challenging (Grewal et al., 2019), which makes it important to identify the best possible strategies to normalise atypical fruit and vegetable appearances. This article has addressed the call in previous literature to investigate the underlying socialisations driving consumer behaviour towards suboptimal produce (Block et al., 2016; Makhal et al., 2020). This paper is the first to have done that in the suboptimal produce waste research by exploring how food appearance preferences for fresh produce are socialised. Understanding these socialisations is useful in fitting and recommending public policy that could be worked around these socialisations.

The results show that suboptimal produce acceptance results from repeated exposure and familiarity with seeing, using, and consuming suboptimal produce. Both growing produce at home and repurposing suboptimal produce are family practices that expose and familiarise children to suboptimal fruits and vegetables and its various uses. It is therefore essential for families to encourage such behaviours that teach children to value suboptimal produce. This would require family members to involve children (through participation) in growing, using and repurposing suboptimal produce. However, creating value in repurposing and using suboptimal produce in households would require that such activities are socially accepted and popularised, an area in which public policy can play a crucial role. For urban households that have no gardens/backyards, policy makers could design community-run and/or school-based gardening projects to get children and families involved in growing produce. Likewise, setting up community kitchens, enlisting local chefs, and getting consumers to feel, cook, taste, and eat suboptimal produce will be significant steps in normalising suboptimal appearance in fresh produce, and popularizing their use in various dishes. Further, accessible farmer markets and co-ops could also be useful in bringing varieties of suboptimal produce in larger quantities into urban dwellings. It is suggested that such public policy interventions take a step further than just familiarising suboptimal produce as these policy recommendations are meant to socialise consumers to value produce irrespective of the appearance.

Another finding is that knowledge about the food waste issue and the agency to make choices for oneself, empowered children to choose suboptimal produce in-store, showing that knowledge may potentially lead to action, provided that the opportunity to do so is also available. Here it is recognised that there is a dearth of public policies and campaigns that specifically target younger audiences, informing them about the food waste problem and guiding them about how they can contribute towards the fight against food waste. As children are getting more involved in consumer activism and expressing high concerns for the environment, it is recommended that public policy campaigns now target younger audiences. The impact of these campaigns can be heightened by leveraging children’s social and environmental concerns, by specifically highlighting the social and environmental effects of food waste. Young consumers, who by their agency and positive pester power, could get their families and communities to value food more and waste food less. Future research could examine the design and effectiveness of such campaign strategies for its translation into actionable public policy.

The current retailing strategies for selling suboptimal produce are about visibility enhancement administered through creating self-space for suboptimal produce. Arguably, these strategies devalue suboptimal produce through either the store layout (keeping suboptimal and optimal produce separate) or pricing strategies (discounting suboptimal produce). Whilst visibility enhancement is important and should be continued, policy strategies should now also focus on normalising using and consuming suboptimal produce. This move will be more effective in changing consumer perceptions about suboptimal produce in the long-run. All socialising factors that lead consumers to accept suboptimal produce debunk the “good appearance = good quality” equation. Children who have grown and eaten suboptimal produce and are familiar with the practice of repurposing suboptimal produce confirmed this from their personal experiences. These socialisations may potentially reconfigure how edibility is perceived, and may even develop into new strategies for evaluating edibility that is not based on appearance alone. Learning about food waste and particularly suboptimal produce waste evoked concern and consequentially lead some of the older children to choose suboptimal produce for themselves from supermarkets. This also shows how children can act as agents of change because they are not only learning about sustainability, but are also applying sustainability ideologies and practices in different social environments (e.g., O’Neill & Buckley, 2019). This underlines the importance of educating and reminding young consumers about sustainability issues (such as food waste), which may hopefully lead to more mindful future behaviours. However, it is recognised that these socialising factors oppose the more dominant norm of devaluing suboptimal produce, which are imparted through observations of parental behaviours and instructions on how produce should be chosen, prepared, and consumed. The suboptimal rejecting socialisations could be why some of the other children did not mention about voluntarily choosing suboptimal produce in-store, despite knowing about suboptimal produce waste. However, these socialisations could be overcome by setting forth normalisation policies that serve to repeatedly remind consumers about suboptimal produce waste, increase their visibility in various store formats, and familiarise and popularise recipes using suboptimal produce.

There are methodological limitations of the study. Given that the data was collected from a single school, generalisability of the results is limited. The sampling procedure used led to an unequal number of group members limiting direct comparisons by age and gender. Social desirability bias is also a possibility when children are a part of focus groups with peers of the same grade as they may repeat answers and comply with peers. Another potential

77 limitation is that the data comes from group discussions with children raising questions about its reliability. However, children are known to give candid and honest answers, helping researchers unwire complex human behaviors. Given that perceptions of suboptimal produce are changing, future research should explore how the new perceptions are sustained, challenged and socialised. It would also be interesting to see how families function around these perceptions towards suboptimal produce and how this effects food consumption at home. Personal interviews with parent-child dyads and triads could also be useful to get a thorough understanding of family practices around using suboptimal produce. Lastly, future research could explore how older children (adolescents) perceive suboptimal foods as they carry forward these perceptions into adulthood.

In conclusion, this paper shows how appearance preferences for fresh fruits and vegetables are socialised. This research advances past research that prescribes studying the sociological origins of food waste to better inform policy interventions that seek to solve the food waste problem (Block et al., 2016) and achieve higher FWB (Block et al., 2011). Understanding these socialisations shows that to change perceptions about suboptimal produce, policy makers and communities (including children) need to work together to encourage trial and acceptance of suboptimal produce. Raising concern through public campaigns targeting children about the social and environmental causes of food waste, and familiarisation through repeated exposure and use is essential to normalise atypical appearance and drive change at the community level. Children can also help transfer knowledge about suboptimal produce use to households through school- and community-led programmes. Further, growing and consuming home-grown produce, shopping for suboptimal produce, and raising awareness about the need for reducing suboptimal food waste may in the long-run make suboptimal produce more acceptable to consume.

Chapter 5: Paper 3

Reducing suboptimal produce waste and devaluation: Insights from young consumers

Abstract The climate emergency has reflected children as an important and impactful consumer segment that is significantly influencing the socio-political discourse around sustainability. As influential members of the household unit, children significantly impact the food choices families make. Indeed, children have expressed positive perceptions towards suboptimal produce, suggesting that retailers could market suboptimal produce to children, and then eventually persuade families to purchase and consume suboptimal produce. Whilst the suboptimal produce waste prevention literature has sought suggestions from growers, retailers, and adult consumers, suggestions from children have not been sought, which could be a missed opportunity for retailers who are at the forefront of selling suboptimal produce in the attempt to familiarise consumers with suboptimal produce. Hence, with 97 primary school children (aged 5-11 years), 11 focus group discussions were conducted to explore suggestions for reducing suboptimal produce devaluation and waste through their own voices. These recommendations not only reflect how children perceive the current strategies that retailers have employed to sell suboptimal produce along with suggesting alternative retail options for selling suboptimal produce, but also opens new frontiers for future research to examine these alternative strategies for selling suboptimal produce.

Keywords: suboptimal produce; retailing strategies, children, food devaluation, food waste

5.1. Introduction In the wake of the climate emergency, food waste has emerged as one of the leading issues of societal concern over the last decade. In response, a growing body of research has looked to define and quantify food waste (Kummu et al., 2012; Parfitt et al., 2010; Stenmarck et al., 2011), understand food waste from the consumer (Block et al., 2016), retailer (Eriksson, 2012) and food producer (Raak et al., 2017) perspectives, and identify solutions for the entire food supply chain (Priefer et al., 2016). Statistics show that almost half the amount of fruits and vegetables grown end up being wasted across the food supply chain, with countries in North America and Oceania

79 taking the lead in producing the largest quantities of fruit and vegetable waste at every stage of the supply chain (FAO, 2017b). This waste is likely to reach 60% by 2050, with the increase in demand for fresh produce (Gustavsson et al., 2011). A major cause of this waste is the retailing practice of imposing cosmetic standards that has led to the selective harvesting and the subsequent forming of consumer preferences in favour of produce that is aesthetically appealing, resulting in the culling and eventual waste of produce that fail to meet these standards (Aschemann-Witzel, de Hooge, & Almli, 2019; Stuart, 2009a). In an effort to reduce this waste, researchers have explored strategies from both retailer and consumer perspectives (Aschemann-Witzel, de Hooge, et al., 2017; de Hooge et al., 2018). Some of these strategies include, using price discounts (Tsalis, 2020), positioning and labelling strategies (de Hooge et al., 2018; van Giesen & de Hooge, 2019), and increasing familiarity, visibility, and availability (Stangherlin do Carmo, Ribeiro, & Barcellos, 2019). However, suboptimal produce continues to be devalued with a slow acceptance rate (Grewal et al., 2019), calling for new ideas that may serve useful in encouraging suboptimal produce purchase and consumption. Although solutions have been traditionally sought from retailers and consumers, a consumer group from whom solutions have not been sought is the young consumer segment comprising of children. Previous research has shown that children find suboptimal produce appealing, expressing willingness to buy and eat produce that look atypical (Makhal et al., 2020). Further, irrespective of age and gender, children express high concern for the environment from a young age (Chawla, 1988; Cohen & Horm-Wingerd, 1993), thereby growing into agents for sustainability action (Stuhmcke, 2012). As consumers and stakeholders in their own right, this paper seeks solutions about the suboptimal produce waste problem from young consumers themselves. Specifically, using thematic analysis children’s own opinions about how retailers could employ strategies for reducing suboptimal produce devaluation and waste is reported. Hence, this paper is presented from a retailing and distribution perspective, with solutions for saving suboptimal produce through the eyes of children. In the subsequent sections, the relevant literature is reviewed to arrive at the research gap. This is followed by a description of the methodology adopted, following which the results are reported. Finally, the concluding remarks, limitations, and future research considerations are provided in the discussions and conclusions section.

5.2. Literature Review

5.2.1. Food Sustainability through reducing suboptimal produce waste Sustainability is defined as meeting the needs of the present, without compromising future generations’ ability to meet theirs (Emas, 2015). However, modern production and consumption practices are largely ‘unsustainable’ because they challenge the three (social, environmental, and economic) pillars of sustainable development (United Nations General Assembly, 2005). In 2016, the United Nations Development Program responded by restating their Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) wherein Goal 12 aims to achieve “Responsible Production and Consumption” through economic growth whilst also reducing the ecological footprint by changing production and consumption practices (https://www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/sustainable-development-goals/goal-12- responsible-consumption-and-production.html). One of their major targets is to halve per capita food waste at retail and consumer levels by 2030 FAO, 2015; Gustavsson et al., 2011). Estimates show that a third of the food produced globally is annually wasted, with developed countries taking a larger share of this waste at retail and household levels (Gustavsson et al., 2011). Further, the estimates show that almost 50 per cent of this waste comprises of fresh fruits and vegetables (FAO, 2017b). A major reason for this large scale of fruit and vegetable waste is the use of appearance standards that categorise produce that do not comply to aesthetic/cosmetic norms as substandard, undesirable, and of poor quality, often leading to their removal from the food supply chain at the farm level and at the retailer and consumer interface (Hyde et al., 2001; Mena et al., 2011; Stuart, 2009a; White et al., 2011). The use of these standards is criticised for generating large quantities of domestic produce waste in countries exporting fresh fruits and vegetables to other (developed) countries; for example, tons of bananas are being wasted in Ecuador because they fail to have the ‘right’ curvature to be exported to the world (Stuart, 2009a). Additionally, using appearance standards means increasing the amount of pesticide use in agriculture, to prevent naturally occurring defects on fresh fruits and vegetables (Pimentel et al., 1993). Government bodies, such as the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) use these standards to reduce the level of pest infestation; however food marketers, such as large supermarket chains, have been criticised for imposing even stricter marketing standards that have little to do with food safety and more to do with food appearance. Such standards are put in place to sell clean, unblemished produce of a standard colour, shape, and size, partly because consumers expect fresh fruits and vegetables to look perfect, but also because retailers are able to set a higher price for produce that look

81 perfect (Fuchs et al., 2009; Fulponi, 2006; Hingley, 2005). In the food waste literature, consumers perceive imperfect produce as inedible or undesirable, and are hence named “suboptimal” produce (Aschemann-Witzel et al., 2015; Raak et al., 2017). From a sustainability perspective, suboptimal produce waste is waste that could be avoided (Aschemann-Witzel et al., 2018a) and reducing this could play a significant role in reducing the social, economic, and environmental footprint added by their waste. As the waste and loss of food accounts for more than 10 per cent of global energy use, reducing/preventing suboptimal produce waste would mean moving a few steps closer towards achieving the 12th SDG goal (FAO, 2017a).

5.2.2. Retailer-led strategies to encourage the purchase of suboptimal produce Although academics and policy makers agree that a significant amount of fruit and vegetable waste is due to appearance standards, there is no data recorded showing the amount of produce lost due to these standards (de Hooge et al., 2018), which makes it difficult to estimate its social, environmental, and economic consequences. However, there have been predictions made, such as Royte (2016) who predicts that if suboptimal produce were saved from landfills and consumers accepted it, it could be sufficient to address global food insecurity issues. For growers and sellers, this would bring additional revenue for having such produce sold over being wasted (Stuart, 2009a). Environmentally, not having suboptimal produce wasted would mean lower levels of greenhouse gases (such as methane), from preventing their waste and an efficient use of the resources that went into growing produce that turned out imperfect (Gustavsson et al., 2011; Parfitt et al., 2010). Therefore, researchers have been looking at different strategies to help make suboptimal produce appeal to consumers. One such strategy is based on consumers’ willingness to pay for suboptimal produce, where authors have found that consumers are only willing to buy suboptimal produce when its price is discounted (Aschemann-Witzel, Jensen, et al., 2017; de Hooge et al., 2017). This strategy has been uniformly applied by most retail chains, globally. For example, the French retailer Intermarché’s “Inglorious Fruits and Vegetables campaign had a Unique Selling Proposition of “As good, but 30% cheaper”. Similarly, smaller sellers of non- calibrated produce such as “Misfits Market” provide up to 40% discount. Retailers too unanimously believe that there is an obligation to discount imperfect produce to generate demand (Aschemann-Witzel et al., 2016). However, contrary opinions assert that discounts encourage over-purchase and subsequent waste at the household level (Cox & Downing, 2007; Farr-Wharton, Foth, & Choi, 2014; Porpino et al., 2015), and may even further devalue

82 suboptimal produce due to the perception of discounts and low prices being attributed to poor quality (Aschemann-Witzel, 2018a; Raak et al., 2017). Hence, more nuanced discounting strategies have been suggested that show that consumers who seek a good deal and better value are more likely to buy and use suboptimal produce than those who just shop on a budget (Aschemann-Witzel, 2018a; Tsalis, 2020). Message strategies for selling suboptimal produce have also been studied. Particularly, messages that anthropomorphise suboptimal produce with eyes and appendages have been empirically proven to successfully increase attention towards, and preference for, suboptimal produce in store (Cooremans & Geuens, 2019). Another body of research looks at suboptimal produce positioning strategies. Messages linking suboptimal produce to food waste avoidance has empirically led to increased choice likelihood (Aschemann-Witzel et al., 2018a). Similarly, van Giesen and de Hooge (2019) report that positioning strategies work better than pricing strategies. They report that selling suboptimal produce with a sustainability positioning appears to work better when it is combined with a discounted price (van Giesen & de Hooge, 2019). They further add that positioning suboptimal produce as “natural” improves produce quality perceptions. Irrespective of the strategy used, consumers are more willing to buy suboptimal foods when their perceived probability of waste at home is low (Aschemann- Witzel, Jensen, et al., 2017). This shows that consumers’ concern for food waste may generate scepticism towards price promotions (Le Borgne, Sirieix, & Costa, 2018), a finding that could also apply to the existing retail practice of discounting suboptimal produce. This is why persuading consumers to prefer suboptimal produce continues to challenge supply chain actors (Grewal et al., 2019), which makes it important to look for solutions or recommendations from the eyes of consumers.

5.2.3. Consumer perceptions of suboptimal produce Existing literature (mainly with adult consumers) shows that produce with any type of atypical appearance is perceived as substandard in terms of quality, taste and edibility (e.g., Jaeger et al., 2016; Jaeger et al., 2018). This is translated into their willingness to pay for produce with atypical appearances (e.g., Rohm et al., 2017; Yue et al., 2007). Research shows that consumers’ willingness to pay for suboptimal produce varies according to the type and level of suboptimality. For example, willingness to pay is higher for produce with shape defects than produce with blemishes (de Hooge et al., 2017). This is because blemishes are perceived as sources of contamination, poor taste (Aschemann-Witzel, 2018a; de Hooge et al., 2017), and an impediment to the eating experience (Jaeger et al., 2018). Consumers also

83 demand higher discounts for extremely misshaped produce (Loebnitz et al., 2015). Further, consumers are unwilling to purchase produce with various degrees of browning because brown discolorations are perceived to taste bad and connote decay and decomposition (Jaeger et al., 2018; Schifferstein et al., 2018). However, Makhal et al. (2020), show that generally children may be more accepting of atypical produce. With the exception of blemishes, all other appearance defects were positively perceived. Past literature shows that children are drawn towards novelty in familiar foods, such as differences in colours and shapes (Branen et al., 2002; Dovey et al., 2012). Children’s positive quality perceptions of suboptimal foods were a result of how familiar they were with seeing, using, and tasting suboptimal produce (Makhal, Robertson, Thyne, & Mirosa, under review; Makhal et al., 2020). Hence, it is advocated that to generate wider acceptance of novel foods (such as suboptimal produce) it is essential that early familiarisation strategies are employed (Tuorila & Hartmann, 2019). Early familiarisation paves way for the indoctrination or normalisation of food-related knowledge, skills, perceptions and practices (Connell et al., 2016). For example, in Makhal et al. (under review) shows how the family practice of growing, using, and repurposing suboptimal produce leads to children’s liking and preference for suboptimal produce, and increased knowledge about how suboptimal produce could be repurposed. Similarly, knowledge and awareness about food waste, empowers children to act as change-makers by deliberately choosing suboptimal over optimal produce (Makhal et al., under review).

5.2.4. Children as consumer-citizens and drivers of change Owing to the influence children have in the marketplace, marketers have “courted” young consumers as a means of reaching adult consumers and growing a market for them (Buckingham, 2007). This means that children as young consumers are roped into the consumer culture from a young age (John, 1999). For example, retail spaces are designed to engage children with the products and promotional strategies in-store (Ayadi & Cao, 2016), and hence children too are cognizant of in-store deals and promotions (Thyne, Robertson, Watkins, & Casey, 2019). As consumers in their own right, children have the capacity to influence choices and persuade others to adopt behaviours and practices that work towards a sustainable behaviour (Donovan, 2016). This empowerment of the young consumer segment is also a product of The UNESCO’s Global Action Program on Education for Sustainable Development initiative which required that environmental and sustainability education be incorporated in the school curriculum to achieve sustainable development literacy (Buckler & Creech, 2014). Further, children are driven to take action towards sustainable behaviours

84 when families (parents) have climate-related conversations with them (Lawson et al., 2019), resulting in the intergenerational transfer of environmental values (Grønhøj & Thøgersen, 2009; Meeusen, 2014). These influences altogether have resulted in high levels of concern for the environment amongst the young consumer demographic (Francis & Davis, 2015). With this knowledge and awareness about sustainability issues, children are able to influence family consumer behaviour through their ‘positive pester-power’ (O’Neill & Buckley, 2019), leading to positive environmental outcomes at the familial or household level (Larsson et al., 2010). The recent rise of child activists to fight the climate ‘emergency’ is showing the burgeoning role of children in society who are now influencing governments and policy makers to prioritise climate action over mere economic growth (Thunberg, 2019). Such movements represent the rise of the young consumer in the global sustainability arena, who are concerned about their “common future” (Brundtland, Khalid, Agnelli, Al-Athel, & Chidzero, 1987). Put together, incorporating children’s voice about sustainability issues by including them as a “part of the conversations and possible solutions, to have their ideas and contributions valued… ” (p. 473) is a vital move towards a more sustainable world (Mackey, 2012).

Suggestions from children have proved valuable in multiple domains, including the design of childhood services in schools and playgroups (Farrell, Tayler, & Tennent, 2002), improving quality of life for terminally ill children (Akard et al., 2015), designing natural spaces (Wake, 2007), and sustainability literacy (Watkins, Aitken, & Ford, 2019). Recent socio-political developments show that children’s involvement in environmental activism has exponentially increased, and that this could be leveraged towards suboptimal produce as well is also recognised. Research into suboptimal produce waste has thus far looked at adult consumers and ‘experts’ for solutions (e.g., Aschemann-Witzel et al., 2016 and Rohm et al., 2017), however, selling suboptimal produce in supermarkets today remains a challenge (Grewal et al., 2019). A gap in the literature exists that has looked for solutions to the suboptimal produce waste problem from children’s point of view. Thus, the objective of this study is to present solutions voiced by children for retailers to consider to reduce suboptimal produce waste. This was done through focus group discussions with primary school children (aged 5-11 years) who were asked about the different strategies that may be employed for reducing suboptimal produce waste.

5.3. Materials and Methods A qualitative approach using focus group discussions with children was used to explore children’s perceptions about their suggestions to counter the suboptimal produce waste problem, and also more specifically their views and opinions on the “odd bunch”. This study is a part of a larger research project that aimed to explore children’s perceptions towards suboptimal produce and the socialisation around produce appearance preferences. Focus group discussions with children are useful to help child participants bounce off ideas from fellow participants and freely build on them (Gibson, 2007; Gibson, 2012). Approval for data collection was sought and granted by the University of Otago and the participating school, and the child participants and their parents gave their written and informed consent for participating in the study. To reduce any selection bias, a large, central, co-educational, primary school in the South Island of New Zealand was chosen for recruiting child participants, and the school teachers distributed information sheets and consent forms. To lower response bias the children were told that the study was about their thoughts and preferences for fruits and vegetables. The data was collected in a common room within the school’s premises, which is a familiar environment and facilitator for child participants to freely express their views and opinions (Kennedy et al., 2001; Krueger & Casey, 2009; Morgan et al., 2002).

5.3.1. Sample In total 46 boys and 51 girls were recruited for the study. Parents provided the age of their child on the consent forms, which was used to group children by age for the focus groups. The focus group sizes ranged from six group members to eleven group members, similar to the size of focus groups in past research (Bertol et al., 2017). In sum, 11 focus group discussions were conducted, which included two groups of five to six year olds (n = 7 and 6), two groups of seven-year olds (n = 9 and 10), two groups of eight-year olds (n = 11 and 11), two groups of nine year olds (n = 9 and 9), and three groups of ten to eleven year olds (n = 9, 8, and 8).

5.3.2. Stimuli When conducting focus group discussions with children, using stimuli is recommended to assist in providing a visual representation of the idea or object being discussed (Krueger & Casey, 2009; Stewart & Shamdasani, 1990). It also helps keep the discussions focussed on a given topic and prevents straying too far away from the topic of discussion, especially when such group discussions are timed and there are multiple topics of

86 discussion to be covered by the moderator. As stimuli the poster of the “odd bunch” campaign currently run by the Countdown supermarket see figure 5) was used. The existing “odd bunch” campaign of a New Zealand supermarket, Countdown, was used as a prompt because the campaign is reflective of the typical strategies used in retailer stores. It is also a tangible example that children might have been exposed to because it was running at the time of the study. Likewise, a suboptimal (forked) carrot was also used as a stimuli to gather a richer understanding of children’s thoughts.

Figure 5: The "Odd Bunch" campaign by the New Zealand supermarket Countdown and a suboptimal (forked) carrot used as stimuli during focus group discussions

5.3.3. Procedure A semi-structured interview protocol was used as a framework to ensure consistency in the discussions, whilst also being flexible for the participants to freely express and expand on their opinions (Ghauri, 2005). This protocol was tested and refined through a pilot test. The pilot test resulted in the framing of the questions in language more familiar with children. The questions asked followed informational statements giving an example of suboptimal produce waste (1) “Almost half of the carrots that are grown on fields today are never eaten

88 because they do not look perfect. For example, carrots that look like this are thrown away into landfill rather than being sent to the grocery store. What do you think should be done with these carrots? (2) Countdown sells the “odd bunch” the package says: “foods that should be tasted and not wasted” and “food just as beautiful on the inside”. Do you think this carrot is just as beautiful from the inside? Do you think these foods should be tasted and not wasted? Upon arrival at the venue, the instructions for the group discussions were explained to the participants and their anonymity and the confidentiality of their answers were assured. As children are vulnerable participants, only trained moderators conducted the focus group discussions, probing occasionally with questions such as “Could you explain that?” or “Why do you think so?” They ensured that every child got a chance to share her/his views and ceased questioning when ideas and themes were being repeated. The approximate duration of each of the group discussions was 15 minutes. In the next section, the themes derived will be reported along with examples from the transcripts. To ensure confidentiality and anonymity, pseudonyms will be used for the examples.

5.4. Results The focus group discussions were transcribed verbatim, and thematic analysis was used to inductively discover important themes (Braun & Clarke, 2006; Saldana, 2009). Firstly, the raw data transcripts were thoroughly read multiple times, then an open coding system was used to allow themes to emerge from the data. Thereafter, a closed coding system was used to merge subthemes into broader themes. To ensure consistency, the themes were reviewed at every stage of the coding process. In total, two themes were obtained (for an overview see table 5)

Table 5: Overview of themes

Themes Definitions Subthemes Examples

Theme 1 This theme presents how Lowering cosmetic Example 1: Prevent children perceive current standards for fresh fruits “At least supermarkets can make suboptimal suboptimal produce and vegetables them [the standards] less strict” produce retailing strategies, with

devaluation respect to the “Odd Suboptimal produce “If you put the weird stuff with Bunch” campaign, and should not be separated the normal fruit people will take alternative solutions to from optimal produce them”

prevent the devaluation Branding and pricing “I think you should not call them of suboptimal produce suboptimal produce ‘odd’ and ‘wonky’… I mean like I wouldn’t mind buying this but I don’t think many grownups would buy something that you call wonky, I know my dad wouldn’t!”

“I think you should not sell them cheaper cause people think cheap means bad quality…” Theme 2 This theme captures Children as a potential “I think kids will love stuff like Strategies alternative marketing market for suboptimal the ‘odd bunch’. Maybe have a should be used and distribution produce large tent of “the odd village” to market and strategies for suboptimal Redistribute through the “… you can put loads of wonky distribute produce that retailers existing “Free Fruit for stuff there [free fruit for kids bin], suboptimal could employ. The Kids” channel in-store kids will like that! produce recommendations

highlight children’s perceptions of how the Sell suboptimal produce “We bought the odd bunch and I young consumer group with extreme appearance don’t think they are odd enough” would be more willing to defects buy and consume Encourage adult “You can turn it into a game. suboptimal produce, how consumers to buy and Like a ‘can you eat this?’ retailers could encourage consume suboptimal challenge” adult consumers to produce purchase suboptimal “Eat the odd bunch and become produce, and how the the food waste warrior!” social value of saved

suboptimal produce “People don’t know about the could be increased by waste… You can tell them about selling and distributing it” them to those who are in need Donating suboptimal “The carrots or apples or any produce to the poor food that doesn’t look like very good to eat, you should give them to the government and they’ll

hand it out to people who cannot buy them or the homeless”

5.4.1. Theme 1: Prevent suboptimal produce devaluation Children perceived that the New Zealand supermarket Countdown’s “Odd Bunch” marketing strategy is one that differentiates optimal and suboptimal produce based on appearance. This differentiation is perceived to devalue suboptimal produce because they are labelled “odd”, and priced and positioned in a manner that suggests lower quality than regular produce as cosmetic standards continue to exist and be practiced. Hence, this theme suggests how existing retailing practices could be modified to prevent the devaluation of suboptimal produce.

5.4.1.1. Lowering cosmetic standards for fresh fruits and vegetables

This discussion suggested that only some people buy produce that look perfect, whilst the general public is oblivious to the standards. For example, Hattie (7) commented, “I think people don’t even care about how fruit (and vegetable) looks. When I go to the supermarket mum is always hurrying! We don’t have the time! This carrot (points at the suboptimal carrot) is not a potato, it won’t taste like a potato, it will just be a carrot even if it looks like that (laughs)!” Similarly, other children stated that there will always be some people who would be willing to eat suboptimal produce: “I know some girls are really fussy, but we boys might want to eat them”, said Rob (5), to which Mike (6) added, “… You can still put them in the shop if people still like them they’ll buy”. In a similar vein, the older children suggested that supermarkets could store suboptimal produce just like the farmers markets. Ella (9), who mentioned about supermarkets not storing green bananas, added, “Like you could give people recipe cards on how to use a green banana… The other day we got some really funny parsnips from the farmers market. My dad made roast dinner and we all loved it!” Similarly, Gabby (10) reflected, “Yeah you can get wonky stuff from the farmers market, but they always run out! Like I would buy stuff like this from the supermarket if they keep [it]… There’s always someone who’d buy this [points at the suboptimal carrot]”. For this, several children suggested that suboptimal produce could be effectively normalised if cosmetic standards are either lowered or removed, thereby creating more shelf space for produce that look atypical. For example, Joy (9) said “At least supermarkets can make them [the standards] less strict”

91 and Craig (9) mentioning about the waste of suboptimal bananas added, “The standards should be removed”. Likewise, Isabel (9) explained, “Um even though the food is like this (suboptimal) tomato, just stick them up at the store and people will buy them if the stores have less perfect standards” Similarly, Marcus (10) suggested, “… Maybe you could just remove them [the standards]! I don’t think people really care how pretty the carrot is. It’s just a carrot you can eat it!” and Bill (10) added, “These standards for looks should be cut!”

5.4.1.2. Suboptimal produce should not be separated from optimal produce

Referring to the ‘Odd Bunch’, children mentioned about how suboptimal and optimal produce are placed separately in supermarkets, implying that suboptimal and optimal produce are different. As shoppers are oblivious to standards, normalising suboptimal produce by ‘mixing them in’ was suggested, this would potentially narrow the perceived difference between suboptimal and optimal produce. These suggestions follow from the previous sub- theme. For example, Sandra (9) suggested, “But another reason why the supermarkets have like standards cause they feel like buyers won’t buy like un-perfect fruit and vegetables. But buyers will buy un-perfect fruit and vegetables if you give them a chance to… Just mix it in buyers won’t realise that there’s a difference”. Similarly, Tim (9) suggested, “I want to say just put them together. People don’t care about looks like at the farmers markets people buy whatever the farmer brings” and Suzy (7) added, “If you put the weird stuff with the normal fruit people will take them. [I: How do you know that?] People, they don’t know, they can’t understand [the difference between] normal and weird… Someone can see some weird fruit and say ‘that’s what I’ll take’” (Suzy, 7). With respect to the “Odd Bunch”, this also meant not selling them separately in different counters. For example, John (10) suggested, “I saw that they [Countdown] have a separate place for the ‘odd bunch’. I was getting pears but I found the normal pears first so I took them. I would, maybe, I would have chosen the odd bunch first… Just keep the odd and non-odd together!” Gabby (10) responded to him, “Yeah that right… I think they could just keep them together with the perfect pears”. Becky (7) also stated, “Well I want to say how about put this “odd bunch” just next to the other stuff… Then you can see what people like. [I: What do you think people will buy?] The odd bunch for sure. [I: How do you know?] Cause I think those are different. I know because of food waste mummy and I would buy this [odd bunch] one”.

5.4.1.3. Branding and pricing suboptimal produce

Children also suggested that the current marketing strategy to sell suboptimal produce cheaper under the “odd bunch” brand/label is devaluing suboptimal produce. For example, with respect to discounting Betty (8) mentioned, “I think you should not sell them cheaper cause people think cheap means bad quality… you would not like that would you?” Similarly Aron (8) added, “Yeah like people would just buy it to waste it”. Cathie (10) explained this further, “We waste food because it is cheap, what’s the point in selling the wonky stuff for cheap?” Additionally, the 9 and 10 year olds mentioned that suboptimal produce should not be discriminated from regular produce by branding them “odd” because it reflects poor quality. For example, Ava (10) recommended, “I think you should not call them ‘odd’ and ‘wonky’… Like I wouldn’t mind buying this but I don’t think many grownups would buy something that you call wonky, I know my dad wouldn’t!” Caleb (9) suggested, “…And if you say that these are odd, it means they are not the best” and Joy (9) added, “My mum always tells us to take like the best apples not odd apples”. Likewise, Shane (10) implied, “People may think “odd bunch” is the lower quality cheaper stuff… Nah just call them normal or sell them together [with the optimal produce]”. The theme ‘Preventing suboptimal produce devaluation’ not only captures children’s perceptions of the current retailing practices of selling suboptimal produce, including their concerns about how the current retailing practices devalues suboptimal produce, but also, it suggests strategies voiced by children that may help prevent the devaluation of suboptimal produce.

5.4.2. Theme 2: Marketing and Distribution Strategies for selling suboptimal produce This theme captures how the marketing and distribution of suboptimal produce could be modified and advanced by retailers. The suggestions outlined by children are novel and express their willingness to buy and consume suboptimal produce in addition to how in-store message strategies could motivate shoppers to buy and consume suboptimal produce. Lastly, the redistribution of unsold suboptimal produce to the destitute was also suggested to help meet the nutritional needs of the poor and homeless people in New Zealand.

5.4.2.1. Children as a potential market for suboptimal produce

Children suggested that the young consumer market would be more willing to accept suboptimal produce than adults and thus retailers should market suboptimal produce to

93 children, and bring more suboptimal produce to supermarkets. John (10) suggested that retailers should store more suboptimal produce for kids as he recalls how his younger brother and his friends make people out of suboptimal produce, “Get more of them so that kids can enjoy and imagine what they could do… cause my brother Nick and his friends when they had to bring something cool to school, like he found a carrot which was just straight and it had two points of it coming out of its top and two point of it coming out of its bottom. So he drew two dots and a ‘smiley face’ on it!” Shane (10) added, “Super carrots! Like Superman… Kids love that” and Similarly, Minnie (6) exclaimed, “Look this [suboptimal carrot] looks like a person! (laughs)” and Neville (8) called the carrot, “This is carrot man cause he has legs!” Likewise, Pete (10) suggested, “I think kids will love stuff like the ‘odd bunch’. Maybe have a large tent of “the odd village”; to which Gabby (11) added, “Call it ‘odd city’! Like you can have a space-themed stuff… I’d love that… Like I know my friends would do too!” Thus, children suggested that young consumers could be a more lucrative market for retailers to sell suboptimal produce, hence campaigns that target the young consumer cohort is needed.

5.4.2.2. Redistribute through the existing “Free Fruit for Kids” channel in-store

Children also suggested that retailers could donate suboptimal produce to children for free under their ‘free fruit for kids’ scheme, as a means of preventing their waste. For example, Ollie (8) stated, “There’s actually this thing in the supermarkets it’s called ‘free food for kids’. It doesn’t matter if they’re wonky because, well, it’s still food really and free, well the carrots and stuff are yummy anyway, lots and lots of people like them anyway, even though the farmers and supermarkets don’t like them”. Likewise Marty (11) added, “Many times I don’t find any free fruit in the free fruit for kids bin, you can put loads of wonky stuff there, kids will like that!”, to which Lilly (11) added, “It can be good cause kids won’t be hungry going around asking parents to buy something. The little kids are always asking for food – give them free fruit!” Following from his previous comment on mixing together suboptimal and optimal produce, Mike (6) further suggested, “I was saying, you can mix them [suboptimal and optimal] in and if no one takes, sometimes there is always leftover fruit in supermarkets, you can give those for free to kids…. I look for a banana in the free [fruit for kids] bin. You can put those really brown bananas in the kids’ basket”. These examples suggest children’s willingness to choose and consume suboptimal produce.

5.4.2.3. Sell suboptimal produce with extreme appearance defects

Most children who saw the ‘odd bunch’ posters mentioned that the produce were not “odd enough” and therefore should not be sold for less. Alice (10) commented, “I would eat them they are fine! Do they really sell them for cheap? I think they look fine. Some of them are so cute (points at the anthropomorphised faces)”. Likewise, Matt (11) commented, “What’s wrong with that apple, I don’t understand? Well the apple looks normal to me… Well pretty much all of them do! I can’t tell what the difference is among those… (pointing at pictures of the odd bunch fruits and vegetables on the poster). They don’t actually look that odd here. I think they look fine because they’re honestly not too odd”. Some children shared that they grow and eat produce that look more suboptimal than what Countdown is providing. Seth (7) stated, “I grow really weird fruits at home. These look perfect, you should see the stuff from my garden… I tell you they grow this way and that way”. Those who had purchased the ‘odd bunch’ did not perceive the fruit and vegetables as suboptimal. Being critical of Countdown’s initiative, Bella (8) stated, “Yes we bought the odd bunch and I don’t think they are odd enough. That’s not fair cause Countdown calls them “odd” but they are very good actually”. To this Katie (8) explained, “It’s like you are showing us ‘oh yeah look we are not wasting’ but honestly you are just selling the perfect for less” As the “odd bunch” was perceived to be not “odd enough”, Wayne (9), said “Some of that food I personally think I’d buy it (referring to the pictures on the poster). Like I’d buy it, it’s more likely that I’d buy it than the other (perfect) one because it’s cheap. But some of them especially that – like the avocado (referring to the picture of the avocado) – looks like garlic (laughs), confusing!” and Finn (7) mentioned, “Well… I didn’t know about the “odd bunch”… I’ll tell my mum about it and when we go shopping on Saturday I’ll get it cause they don’t look that bad at all and they are cheap”. Hence, children recommend that retailers’ should bring produce with extreme appearance abnormalities in-store as the ones sold under the ‘Odd Bunch’ are relatively more optimal than suboptimal.

5.4.2.4. Encouraging adult consumers to buy and consume suboptimal produce

As the participants perceived that children and the young consumer market would be more willing to purchase suboptimal produce from the supermarkets, strategies for encouraging adult consumers to buy and consume suboptimal produce were also suggested. Thus, the responses gathered reflected how consumers can be motivated to accept suboptimal produce, the first of these recommendations suggest gamifying eating and buying suboptimal

95 produce. “You can turn it into a game. Like a ‘can you eat this?’ challenge”, suggested Nadine (10). Similarly, Nelly (7) stated “You can have something like “how many ugly fruit did you eat today?” and Matt (11) asked his group, “How ‘bout if you have like different types of odd-bunch types [of fruits and vegetables] and like you can ask people to make something out of it…”. Another suggestion was to provide motivational messages encouraging more buyers to purchase and consume suboptimal produce. Hence, various slogans for motivating suboptimal produce consumption was suggested. For example, “Say something like ‘You can eat it!’” said Stan (6); “Be a hero! Stop food waste!” said Bella (8); “Eat the odd bunch and become the food waste warrior!” added Caleb (9); and Marty (11) suggested “Wonky carrots for cool people”. This also shed light on the lack of awareness about suboptimal produce waste, and thus children across all age groups recommended that supermarkets could be spaces for spreading awareness about food waste. “State the facts!” said Adam (9) and Cody (6) suggested “People don’t know about the waste… You can tell them about it”. Similarly, Tony (7) declared, “People should really know the real numbers” and Sage (9) said, “Spread the news if you want people to buy the ‘odd bunch’… I learnt about food waste and told my parents not to waste milk”. However, some children argued that awareness alone is insufficient to reduce food waste: “Even if the standards don’t exist people will still not buy this [suboptimal] stuff because they are fussy and spoilt” (Tanya, 10) and similarly, drawing parallels with environmental pollution for food waste Larry (8) opined, “People still don’t care about pollution… [Although] everyone knows that pollution kills the earth and water and birds. People won’t care about food waste I know… [I: How do you know that?] Well cause people are lazy and they’ll like waste heaps still. It makes me very angry”.

5.4.2.5. Donating suboptimal produce to the poor

Being aware of homelessness in New Zealand, several children suggested the idea that as poor people are unable to afford expensive fruits and vegetables and that supermarkets could be donating or redistributing imperfect produce, which would be effective in helping them and also preventing suboptimal produce waste. The suggestion to donate or redistribute suboptimal produce to the destitute and homeless is currently being practiced by several retailers globally (Bech-Larsen, 2019). For example, Lydia (5) stated, “…it’s not good to waste [suboptimal produce] because there are poor people and they don’t have any money to buy all that fruit… Best to give it to the poor people for free”. Similarly, Mila (9) added, “’I’d say the same… It’s like at least you’ve got some food, so cause some people don’t have any

96 food”. Likewise, Sean (8) suggested, “The carrots or apples or any food that doesn’t look like very good to eat, you should give them to the government and they’ll hand it out to people who cannot buy them or the homeless” and Becky (7) mentioned, “Mum and I saw a van that carries food to people who are starving. I feel these people will like to have the un-perfect stuff”. A majority of children mentioned donating suboptimal produce to food banks for poor people, who would be more willing (than other consumers, including themselves) to accept them: “There is always some people who you know is poor and maybe you could always give them the wonky stuff. They wouldn’t reject it like the rest of us and it wouldn’t be a waste cause you are giving it to the poor”, said Shane, (10) and Alice (10) added, “If you’re not going to eat it, it’s a waste of good food, so it is better to give it to people who actually need it”. Matt (11) also stated, “They [supermarkets] could like give it to the food bank so that the poor people could have them. And they wouldn’t like care what they would look like, they would just eat it. At least its food and they wouldn’t go to bed hungry!” Mia (10) recounted using food banks for grocery supplies, “There’s this thing where my mum goes to where she gets food for free because sometimes we don’t have enough, and then mum makes use of the vegetables like some of it’s not the best, but my mum makes it useful by using it in cooking for like dinner or stuff instead of wasting it. It’s always good to use… I know cause we sometimes get them”. Isabel (9) also suggested that retailers could store suboptimal produce in store, but if it doesn’t sell, “…you can give them away to the poor and homeless cause they won’t have much money and-and so why not give fruit and vegetables for free”. These marketing and redistribution strategies suggested by children reflect children’s willingness to consume suboptimal produce by suggesting that retailers carry out more targeted marketing of the “Odd Bunch” produce range to the younger demographic, and that the existing ‘Free Fruit for Kids’ could be another avenue for retailers to distribute suboptimal produce to the young consumer demographic. Alternatively, message strategies that motivate general shoppers to purchase and consume the “Odd Bunch” and help spread awareness about the food waste problem was also recommended, along with redistributing unsold suboptimal produce to the homeless and destitute in New Zealand to maximise the quantity of suboptimal saved from landfills. Although, it is recognised that the recommended strategy of redistributing unsold suboptimal produce to the poor and homeless contradicts the previous suggestion of preventing suboptimal produce devaluation as it could imply that suboptimal produce is meant for the poor to purchase and consume whilst wealthier consumers purchase and consume cosmetically perfect produce.

Hence, children provide multiple solutions that are geared towards reducing/preventing the devaluation of suboptimal produce, and alternative retailing strategies for selling and distributing suboptimal produce. Children perceived the retailer strategy of discounting, positioning, and branding suboptimal produce as “odd”, differentiates and devalues produce based on appearance. Narrowing this perceived gap may require either lowering or abolishing these standards, and using non-discriminatory pricing, branding, and positioning strategies. Additionally, several children suggested that the young consumer market would be lucrative for retailers to sell and distribute suboptimal produce as they are likely to anthropomorphise suboptimal produce and perceive them as “fun”. Further, information and gamification message strategies were recommended for motivating regular shoppers to buy and consume suboptimal produce. Lastly, donating unsold suboptimal produce to the poor and homeless people in New Zealand through food banks and retailer-led redistribution initiatives was also suggested.

5.5. Discussions and conclusions Food waste is called a “wicked problem” because of its complexity and paradoxical nature with respect to global hunger and malnutrition (Alhonnoro et al., 2020). To arrive at a solution, suggestions from multiple stakeholders that focus on food waste prevention is recommended (Mourad, 2016; Schmidt & Matthies, 2018). This has significance for suboptimal produce waste as this waste is avoidable if food suppliers are willing to sell suboptimal produce and consumers are willing to buy them (Aschemann-Witzel, 2015; Aschemann-Witzel et al., 2016; Kulikovskaja & Aschemann-Witzel, 2017). Although solutions from several stakeholders have been sought and implemented (Aschemann-Witzel et al., 2015; de Hooge et al., 2018; Rohm et al., 2017), suboptimal produce sales continue to drag (Grewal et al., 2019). Therefore, researchers are testing different strategies that may overcome the inherent problems of selling suboptimal produce (e.g., Cooremans & Geuens, 2019). A commonly practiced retailing strategy for selling suboptimal produce is about discounting and branding suboptimal produce as ‘odd’, ‘inglorious’, or ‘misfits’, which raises questions about the devaluation of suboptimal produce (Raak et al., 2017). In this paper, it is argued that a consumer group from whom solutions have not been reported are young consumers, although their voices for various sustainability and environmental issues are now being sought and considered valid. Hence, this study reports strategies or solutions for preventing suboptimal produce devaluation and waste through children’s own voices. These strategies are reported under two themes, the first concerns children’s perceptions of

98 suboptimal produce devaluation under the current “Odd Bunch” campaign by the New Zealand retailer Countdown, and likewise provides alternatives for retailers to prevent/reduce the devaluation of suboptimal produce. The second theme represents alternative marketing and distribution strategies retailers could employ to sell suboptimal produce. The strategies recommended are not only “ideas” that retailers could take up and pilot test, but also opens new questions for future research to examine as the current literature on suboptimal produce is moving towards identifying novel retailing strategies for persuading consumers to buy and consume suboptimal produce. An overview of the results show that children recognise that suboptimal produce devaluation and waste is as much a retailer-driven problem as it is a consumer-related problem. An interesting finding was that children perceived the existing marketing strategies to reduce suboptimal produce waste as insufficient, and believed that retailers could do much more with bringing more (extremely deformed) varieties of suboptimal produce to the mainstream supply chain. Past research shows that extreme appearance defects are not perceived favourably (Loebnitz et al., 2015) which could be why retailers resist from selling extremely suboptimal produce, often calling for a discount of more than 50 percent (de Hooge et al., 2017). From a retailing perspective, it is more profitable to allow shelf space for produce that is perfect than allow shelf space for extremely imperfect and heavily discounted produce (Curhan, 1973). However, it is important for food suppliers to bring produce with higher degrees of sub-optimality to ensure consumers are exposed to all sorts of naturally occurring appearance defects. Hence, Countdown’s “Odd Bunch” produce range was criticised for leaving out produce with extreme appearance defects. Children who had purchased the “Odd Bunch” from Countdown mentioned that they did not find the produce odd enough to be called ‘odd’ in the first place, thereby doubting the purpose of the supermarket’s initiative. Some children mentioned that they have grown produce that looked more suboptimal than the produce the supermarket sells under the “Odd Bunch” label. Additionally, it was perceived that the current branding, pricing, and positioning practices inherently devalue suboptimal produce. Given these perceptions, the alternatives children provided were based on their understanding that shoppers in general are oblivious to cosmetic standards and that retailers could potentially keep them in-store in a manner that would reduce the disparity between optimal and suboptimal produce. This often translated to comments on creating shelf space for suboptimal produce by lowering/abolishing appearance standards. In 2009, The European Union removed cosmetic specifications for 26 out of 36 produce, however the standards continue to exist for several popular fruits and vegetables (such apples,

99 kiwi fruits, pears, strawberries, and several more), and the standards have not been universally repealed in all countries (de Hooge et al., 2018). The current discounting and positioning of suboptimal produce by retailers is perceived to connote poor quality, which is one of the barriers to the purchase of suboptimal produce (Aschemann-Witzel et al., 2018a). Likewise, several children perceived that the current practice of branding suboptimal produce as “odd” or “wonky” implies that they are different from and potentially inferior than the optimal produce, suggesting that they are not the best quality. Hence, some of the suggestions to prevent devaluation were about placing optimal and suboptimal produce together or next to each other. From their shopping experiences at the supermarket, children also suggested that suboptimal produce should be more accessible to customers with the store design facilitating shoppers to reach the suboptimal produce before they reach the optimal produce. The suboptimal produce retailing literature has examined how different communication strategies influence suboptimal food choice in-store (e.g., Aschemann-Witzel et al., 2018a; Aschemann-Witzel, Otterbring, et al., 2019); however, this research field could be furthered by examining how different product placement strategies and branding strategies enhance suboptimal produce choice in retail environments. Several children suggested that unsold suboptimal produce should be donated to the poor and homeless through food banks and government agencies. The social value of rescuing food lies in helping reach communities who would benefit from the food being rescued (Mirosa, Mainvil, Horne, & Mangan-Walker, 2016). This suggestion resonates with reaching excess food (in this case suboptimal produce) to people and communities who would benefit from them. Hence, donating suboptimal produce was not only seen as way of preventing suboptimal produce waste, but also helping poorer communities meet their hunger and nutritional needs (Mirosa et al., 2016). Environmentally, food donations are effective in reducing produce waste related greenhouse gas emissions (Eriksson & Spångberg, 2017), and with the growth of food redistribution networks, suboptimal food supplies in the future is likely to increase (Bech-Larsen, 2019). Another strategy suggested by children was diverting suboptimal produce to the “free fruit for kids” section in supermarkets. The ‘free fruit for kids’ initiative was undertaken by supermarkets to reduce the waste of unsold fruits in-store, whilst also providing a healthy snack for children to be occupied with whilst parents continue with grocery shopping. In Makhal et al. (2020), the authors show that children are accepting of suboptimal produce. Several participants thus suggested that kids would appreciate having redistributed suboptimal produce through the ‘free fruits for kids’ channel and would not

100 mind eating them. The feasibility of this alternative redistribution practice is however yet to be trialled and tested in supermarkets. A significant number of children suggested that consumers should be made aware about food waste issue by stating the food waste statistics. Mentioning about the ‘real numbers’ of waste was suggested to generate concern and create action. Concern about food waste motivates consumers to take actions to prevent food waste, such as asking for doggy bags at restaurants (Sirieix, Lála, & Kocmanová, 2017). However, research also shows that whilst consumers express concern for food waste, they are unwilling to take action because the willingness to act on food waste reduction contradicts other consumption goals (Barone, Grappi, & Romani, 2019). For suboptimal produce, willingness to buy and/or eat conflicts with consumer perceptions of edibility (Nicholes et al., 2019; Watson & Meah, 2013); thereby implying that informational campaigns may not always lead to suboptimal produce choice. Hence, to overcome these conflicts, sustainability positioning and monetary benefits are currently used in Europe (de Hooge et al., 2018; van Giesen & de Hooge, 2019), and anthropomorphism is a popular retailing strategy for selling suboptimal produce in Australia and New Zealand (Cooremans & Geuens, 2019). However, the participants suggested that children could be more involved in buying and consuming suboptimal produce by organising events such as the “odd city” and the “odd village”. Additionally, children suggested that to increase trial of suboptimal produce amongst regular shoppers, marketers could set up games and challenges with questions asking ‘how many ugly fruit did you eat today?’ Gamification interventions are effective means of encouraging fruit and vegetable consumption (Jones, Madden, & Wengreen, 2014; Thompson et al., 2015). It is recommended that future research tests gamification strategies to understand the extent they influence consumers’ acceptance of suboptimal produce. The limitations of this study are recognised. Firstly, methodological limitations exist as the study was conducted in a single school which could raise questions about the generalisability of the opinions expressed. Also, the fact that the recommended actions were suggested by children, the feasibility of these actions can be questioned. However, it is recognised that children have the capacity to provide valuable insights, unique solutions and ideas which should be heard and considered for future actions (Farrell et al., 2002; Gelman & Echelbarger, 2019a; Mackey, 2012). Although attempts were made to keep response bias low by keeping focus group discussion by grade and age and allowing every group member a chance to speak, there is always a possibility of children replicating or agreeing to their group member’s answers to maintain a favourable image of themselves amongst their peers.

101

In conclusion, as the suboptimal produce waste literature continues to grow, there is a need for research to explore more strategies that may help normalise buying and consuming suboptimal produce. This study presents solutions through children’s own voices on how the devaluation and waste of suboptimal produce could be reduced. It shows that children perceive the existing strategies retailers have employed for selling suboptimal produce as insufficient as they perceived that the current marketing strategies devalues suboptimal produce and differentiates them from the regular optimal produce. This suggests that the objective of retailers should be to narrow the gap between optimal and suboptimal produce and not just encourage suboptimal produce sales. As solutions, children suggested increasing the social value of suboptimal produce by donating them to poor and homeless communities who would most likely use and not waste them. They also suggested that whilst information and gamification strategies could be used, roping in children in the fight against food waste by the targeted marketing of suboptimal produce to children would be lucrative for retailers’ sale of suboptimal produce. The participants also suggested how store design could be improved to increase accessibility to suboptimal produce and prevent food devaluation. These alternatives to the marketing and distribution of suboptimal produce could be examined by future research.

102

Chapter 6: Concluding Discussions

This chapter provides a concluding discussion to the overall thesis. It reaffirms the main purpose, the key gaps, and the research questions posed at the beginning of this thesis. It also summarises the key findings and discusses these with reference to the research gap, highlighting the theoretical contributions of this research. Lastly, the implications and limitations of the research are discussed, with a closing note on future research.

The purpose of this thesis was to study suboptimal produce waste from children’s perspective, to explore how they perceive suboptimal produce, how these perceptions are socialised, and finally provide solutions for retailers to address the suboptimal produce waste problem through children’s own voices.

This thesis began by outlining global unsustainable food production and retail practices, emphasising the excess food produced which exceeds the earth’s operational boundaries (Steffen et al., 2015), resulting in the food industry having the single biggest impact on the environment. This impact is furthered by the existence of food waste, which stands juxtaposed against malnutrition and hunger worldwide. Therefore, reducing food waste presents an opportunity for reducing the social, environmental, and economic costs of food waste. Comprising the largest quantity of wasted food is fresh fruits and vegetables (FAO, 2017b). The use of cosmetic standards that remove produce that look imperfect from the food supply chain, is a major cause of this waste. Although retailers and suppliers have been blamed for imposing these standards (Devin & Richards, 2018; Osborn, 2016), it is also true that the use of these standards is informed by consumers poor edibility perceptions towards produce with atypical appearances. However, contributing to meeting the UN’s 2030 SDG goal to halve food waste, retailers are now selling suboptimal produce in supermarkets. The literature review discussed the extant literature on suboptimal produce, concluding that consumers perceive suboptimal produce negatively, and hence their low willingness to pay needs to be countered through the use of sizeable discounts. This, in practice, is challenging retailers as the success of these strategies depends on cutting through consumers’ edibility (mis)perceptions about suboptimal produce whilst also being profitable so that shelf space for suboptimal produce could be allowed (Aschemann-Witzel, de Hooge, et al., 2017). This devaluation and rejection of unattractive suboptimal produce by consumers not only raises concerns about its waste, but also reflects consumers’ disconnectedness with food, its source,

103 and the social, environmental, and economic footprint it carries (Kneafsey, 2008). Hence, food socialisations play a key role in determining how consumers value food. This also implies the possibility of consumers being socialised to devalue and reject suboptimal produce. As food preferences (indicating what is and is not acceptable) form in childhood (Rozin, 1990), understanding how children perceive suboptimal produce casts light on how these appearance preferences are socialised. This thesis underlines the need to listen to children’s voices and acknowledges their right to participate in environmental protection (Donovan, 2016; Mackey, 2012).

This thesis therefore addressed three research objectives: RQ1: How do children perceive suboptimal produce?; RQ2: How are appearance preferences for suboptimal produce socialised?; and RQ3: What are the top strategies recommended by children for retailers to reduce suboptimal produce waste? To answer these questions a methodology that used observations from a shopping activity and focus group discussions with children was employed. To answer the first research question, observational data from the shopping activity and a part of the transcripts from the focus group discussions were used. For the second and third research questions, the transcripts from the focus group discussions were qualitatively analysed and reported.

The culmination of the findings from this research has implications for how suboptimal produce waste should be addressed. As seen in paper 1, the full range of appearance defects was examined. By doing so, this paper reported the nuances of children’s perceptions of different types of appearance defects. Specifically, it shows that children are generally tolerant of suboptimal produce as they are willing to accept produce with shape, size, and certain colour defects, indicating that marketers could sell suboptimal produce with such defects to children using strategies that correlate with how children perceive these types of appearance defects. However, for produce with appearance defects that are negatively perceived, retailers could repurpose them into ready-to-eat dishes to sell in-store. This expands our understanding of how consumer behaviour towards suboptimal produce differs with edibility perceptions differing across the different appearance defects. Hence, some appearance defects were perceived to be less suboptimal than other appearance defects. The marketing and managerial implications highlight how retailing suboptimal fruits and vegetables should be more nuanced based on how consumers perceive different types of appearance defects, in line with new research that suggests the need for more varied discounting strategies to encourage the purchase of suboptimal foods (Tsalis, 2020).

104

Theoretically, it also responds to de Hooge et al.'s (2017) suggestion to examine perceptions towards suboptimal produce based on different types of suboptimalities. This makes this research the first that extends our understanding of consumer perceptions towards different types of appearance defects in suboptimal fruits and vegetables, from the perspectives of young consumers, a consumer group whose perspectives have not been reported in past research. The findings should guide the definitions and methods for defining and examining suboptimal produce in the future as the type of suboptimality examined might influence research outcomes. The complexity of these perceptions has implications for retailers in light of their recent suboptimal produce campaigns where they consider all types of appearance defects, without taking into consideration the nuances of consumer perceptions of different types of suboptimal produce. Not considering these nuances could be one of the reasons why selling suboptimal produce is challenging for retailers.

The second paper revealed the socialisations that contribute to the acceptance of suboptimal produce and the socialisations that contribute to the rejection of suboptimal produce; thereby, responding to past research that suggested the possibility of consumers being socialised or trained to reject suboptimal produce (Devin & Richards, 2018). This not only makes this research the first that provides empirical evidence about how the acceptance or rejection of suboptimal produce is socialised, but also extends our understanding of the socialisation of appearance preferences for fresh fruits and vegetables (e.g., Block et al., 2016) by showing that these appearance preferences are entrenched in the normalised social practices concerning the use and consumption of fruits and vegetables. By doing so, this research casts light on how food waste prevention policies could be incorporated into daily social practices by moving from familiarisation to normalisation policies to counter the devaluation of food. Theoretically, the thesis makes a significant contribution to the food waste literature by providing evidence of how the acceptance of suboptimal produce is not only dependent on the familiarity of seeing suboptimal produce (Aschemann-Witzel, 2018; Aschemann-Witzel et al., 2018a) but also the familiarity of using and repurposing suboptimal produce. It also showed how awareness about food waste issues empowers children to act on that knowledge and choose suboptimal produce for oneself, provided the choice-autonomy to do so is also available. On the contrary, observations of parental produce choice behaviours and instructions from parents about how produce should be chosen, prepared and consumed conveys established family norms regarding desirable produce appearances. Through these observations and instructions, children learn these norms and practice them when choosing,

105 preparing, and consuming fruits and vegetables, leading to the normalisation or indoctrination of appearance preferences. Therefore, applying the socialisation theory, the second paper adds to the literature on the consumer behaviour of suboptimal food waste by demonstrating how consumers are trained to reject suboptimal produce and also how consumers could be re- socialised to accept suboptimal produce. It also shows how children are quick to take on an active role in going against the norm and accepting suboptimal produce, in the process potentially influencing significant others to re-evaluate how edibility is perceived.

The results presented in the third paper add to a growing body of research that recommends taking suggestions directly from young consumers for sustainable development, an area of research that fast expanding and is likely to grow further (e.g., Aitken et al., 2019; Donovan, 2016). Through children’s own voices it confirms a concern raised in Raak et al. (2017) about the current retailing and marketing strategies used to sell suboptimal produce which arguably discriminates between suboptimal and optimal produce, which only furthers the devaluation of produce based on appearance. It also confirmed the findings from the first and second papers that children could be the drivers of change by being more likely to accept suboptimal produce. These recommendations also suggest alternative ways suboptimal produce could be marketed by retailers. For example, gamifying the consumption of suboptimal produce was suggested as an alternative to using discriminatory pricing, branding, and positioning strategies that devalue suboptimal produce. Such alternative suboptimal produce retailing strategies have not been empirically tested in the suboptimal produce retailing literature. Hence, the effectiveness of these alternative strategies could be tested by future research to advance the suboptimal produce retailing literature. Alternatively, retailers could test-run these alternative strategies to understand how consumers receive or respond to them.

This research also makes a methodological contribution. Unlike past research where suboptimality levels were controlled, this study is the first that has used real fruits and vegetables as opposed to digital image renditions of what suboptimal produce would look like. Hence, arguably, the participant responses to suboptimal produce were likely to be closer to how they would be perceived under real circumstances. In summary, this thesis advances the consumer socialisation literature within consumer behaviour by exploring suboptimal produce preferences, devaluation, and waste from the perspectives of children, and showing how appearance preferences for fruits and vegetables are socialised, thereby recommending suggestions for retailers and policy makers to consider for normalising suboptimal produce.

106

Although specific limitations have been discussed in each of the three studies, some general methodological limitations should be considered. Firstly, the design and structure of the shopping activity was unnatural compared to actual shopping environments in supermarkets where children are typically accompanied by parents on shopping trips (Marshall, 2014). Hence, parents’ influence on food choices (including fresh fruits and vegetables) cannot be entirely dismissed (Pettersson et al., 2004). Future research could observe the actual discourse between parents and their child(ren) and amongst siblings, within real supermarket environments to report how food appearance determines fresh produce choices for the family. Another drawback is that the responses came from children which could raise questions about the credibility of the statements made, but we also recognise that child participants give honest and candid responses, unlike adults who are more prone to response bias (Buckingham, 2007; Krueger & Casey, 2009). That said, the possibility of response bias cannot be completely ruled out, as there is also a likelihood for students to concede with other group members’ opinions only to maintain a positive image amongst their peers and classmates. For every age group the data collection had to be completed in an hour, hence time constraints posed as a barrier. Owing to the unequal number of group members across age and gender, direct comparisons were not possible. However, future research could overcome this with more uniform groups so that a comparative analysis of children’s perceptions and food appearance socialisations across ages and genders could also be understood. As the data was collected from students attending a high-decile primary school (level 9), it is likely that the data is limited to participants from higher socio-economic backgrounds and participants from lower socio-economic backgrounds were under- represented. Another related limitation is that the data was collected from a single school. Future research could extend the current findings by including a more generalised sample to explore whether attitudes towards suboptimal produce vary as a function of socioeconomic status. As retailers continue to sell and market suboptimal produce, it will be important for future research to examine how such initiatives affect consumers’ valuation of suboptimal produce. Further, in recognition of children’s growing awareness about environmental issues, including suboptimal produce waste, future research could advance the consumer socialisation literature by exploring how this influences food valuation, consumption and waste practices within the family unit.

The marketing literature concerning reducing suboptimal produce waste is based on consumers’ unwillingness to accept produce with cosmetic defects. Hence, several experts

107 and researchers have suggested the use of discounting, branding, and price-based positioning strategies to increase consumers’ willingness to buy suboptimal produce (e.g., Rohm et al., 2017). However, it can be argued that such strategies are myopic because they only address the symptom of food waste whilst ignoring the larger cause of food waste which is food devaluation (Gjerris & Gaiani, 2013). Indeed, food devaluation and waste is borne out of the social, temporal, and material aspects of everyday life (Evans, 2011; Southerton & Yates, 2015). Hence, to help address the food waste problem in the long run it is imperative that consumers learn to value food and not see it as a disposable commodity (Block et al., 2011). Although consumers are arguably attuned to prefer what is perceived as beautiful (Block et al., 2016), this perception is also socio-culturally and environmentally determined (Evans et al., 2013). This has been observed in consumer food preferences which are a product of the food environment one is raised in (Birch, 1999; Daniel, 2016; Wright, Nancarrow, & Kwok, 2001), some of which even lasting throughout life (Connell, Brucks, & Nielsen, 2014; Connell et al., 2016; Meiselman, 1996; Rozin, 1977, 2005). Hence, understanding suboptimal produce waste from a socialisation perspective provides empirical evidence as to why and how consumers have formed appearance preferences for fresh fruits and vegetables. Thereby also identifying long-term solutions to the suboptimal produce waste problem by showing how consumers can be re-trained or re-socialised to accept suboptimal produce. In conclusion, it is hoped that understanding suboptimal produce perceptions, socialisations, and waste reduction suggestions from the perspectives of young consumers present new insights and opportunities for retailers, marketers, and policy makers for reducing suboptimal produce waste, and opens new research questions for future research to explore. Recognising the opportunities that lie in reducing suboptimal produce waste (Gustavsson et al., 2011; Stenmarck et al., 2011; Stuart, 2009a), the findings from this thesis support the idea that children must be included as a part of the solution to food waste and be recognised as stakeholders of a sustainable future (Donovan, 2016; Thunberg, 2019).

108

References

Aitken, R., Watkins, L., & Kemp, S. (2019). Envisioning a sustainable consumption future. Young Consumers, 20(4), 299-313. doi:10.1108/YC-12-2018-0905 Akard, T. F., Dietrich, M. S., Friedman, D. L., Hinds, P. S., Given, B., Wray, S., & Gilmer, M. J. (2015). Digital storytelling: An innovative legacy-making intervention for children with cancer. Pediatric Blood & Cancer, 62(4), 658-665. doi:10.1002/pbc.25337 Alhonnoro, L., Boller, D., Burke, E., de Almeida Oroski, F., de Visser-Amundson, A., Féret, S., . . . Vogelzang, J. (2020). Food Waste Management: Solving the Wicked Problem (E. Närvänen, N. Mesiranta, M. Mattila, & A. Heikkinen Eds.). Cham, Switzerland: Palgrave macmillan. Aschemann-Witzel, J. (2016). Waste not, want not, emit less. Science, 352(6284), 408-409. doi:10.1126/science.aaf2978 Aschemann-Witzel, J. (2018a). Consumer perception and preference for suboptimal food under the emerging practice of expiration date based pricing in supermarkets. Food Quality and Preference, 63, 119-128. doi:10.1016/j.foodqual.2017.08.007 Aschemann-Witzel, J. (2018b). Helping you to waste less? Consumer acceptance of food marketing offers targeted to food-related lifestyle segments of consumers. Journal of Food Products Marketing, 24(5), 522-538. doi:10.1080/10454446.2018.1472693 Aschemann-Witzel, J., de Hooge, I., Amani, P., Bech-Larsen, T., & Oostindjer, M. (2015). Consumer-related food waste: Causes and potential for action. Sustainability, 7(6), 6457-6477. doi:10.3390/su7066457 Aschemann-Witzel, J., de Hooge, I., & Normann, A. (2016). Consumer-related food waste: Role of food marketing and retailers and potential for action. Journal of International Food & Agribusiness Marketing, 28(3), 271-285. doi:10.1080/08974438.2015.1110549 Aschemann-Witzel, J., de Hooge, I. E., & Almli, V. L. (2019). 12 - Suboptimal food? Food waste at the consumer–retailer interface. In C. M. Galanakis (Ed.), Saving Food (pp. 347-368): Academic Press. Aschemann-Witzel, J., de Hooge, I. E., Rohm, H., Normann, A., Bossle, M. B., Grønhøj, A., & Oostindjer, M. (2017). Key characteristics and success factors of supply chain initiatives tackling consumer-related food waste – A multiple case study. Journal of Cleaner Production, 155(2), 33-45. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.11.173 Aschemann-Witzel, J., Giménez, A., & Ares, G. (2018a). Consumer in-store choice of suboptimal food to avoid food waste: The role of food category, communication and perception of quality dimensions. Food Quality and Preference, 68, 29-39. doi:10.1016/j.foodqual.2018.01.020 Aschemann-Witzel, J., Giménez, A., & Ares, G. (2018b). Convenience or price orientation? Consumer characteristics influencing food waste behaviour in the context of an emerging country and the impact on future sustainability of the global food sector. Global Environmental Change, 49, 85-94. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2018.02.002 Aschemann-Witzel, J., Jensen, J. H., Jensen, M. H., & Kulikovskaja, V. (2017). Consumer behaviour towards price-reduced suboptimal foods in the supermarket and the relation to food waste in households. Appetite, 116, 246-258. doi:10.1016/j.appet.2017.05.013 Aschemann-Witzel, J., Otterbring, T., de Hooge, I. E., Normann, A., Rohm, H., Almli, V. L., & Oostindjer, M. (2019). The who, where and why of choosing suboptimal foods:

109

Consequences for tackling food waste in store. Journal of Cleaner Production, 236, 117596. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.07.071 Atkin, C. K. (1978). Observation of Parent-Child Interaction in Supermarket Decision- Making. Journal of Marketing, 42(4), 41-45. doi:10.2307/1250084 Aune, D., Giovannucci, E., Boffetta, P., Fadnes, L. T., Keum, N., Norat, T., . . . Tonstad, S. (2017). Fruit and vegetable intake and the risk of cardiovascular disease, total cancer and all-cause mortality—a systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis of prospective studies. International Journal of Epidemiology, 46(3), 1029-1056. doi:10.1093/ije/dyw319 Ayadi, K., & Bree, J. (2010). An ethnography of the transfer of food learning within the family. Young Consumers, 11(1), 67-76. doi:10.1108/17473611011026028 Ayadi, K., & Cao, L. (2016). Exploring children’s responses to store atmosphere. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 44(10), 1030-1046. doi:doi:10.1108/IJRDM-08-2015-0125 Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall. Barone, A. M., Grappi, S., & Romani, S. (2019). "The road to food waste is paved with good intentions": When consumers' goals inhibit the minimization of household food waste. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 149, 97-105. doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.05.037 Barrett, J., & Scott, K. (2012). Link between climate change mitigation and resource efficiency: A UK case study. Global Environmental Change, 22(1), 299-307. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2011.11.003 Bech-Larsen, T. (2019). Re-distribution and promotion practices for suboptimal foods – commercial and social initiatives for the reduction of food waste. Society and Business Review, 14(2), 186-199. doi:10.1108/SBR-11-2017-0094 Bell, D., Hollows, J., & Jones, S. (2017). Campaigning culinary documentaries and the responsibilization of food crises. Geoforum, 84, 179-187. doi:10.1016/j.geoforum.2015.03.014 Benton, D. (2004). Role of parents in the determination of the food preferences of children and the development of obesity. International Journal of Obesity, 28(7), 858-869. doi:10.1038/sj.ijo.0802532 Beretta, C., Stoessel, F., Baier, U., & Hellweg, S. (2013). Quantifying food losses and the potential for reduction in Switzerland. Waste Manag, 33(3), 764-773. doi:10.1016/j.wasman.2012.11.007 Bertol, K. E., Broilo, P. L., Espartel, L. B., & Basso, K. (2017). Young children’s influence on family consumer behavior. Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, 20(4), 452-468. doi:10.1108/QMR-07-2016-0057 Birch, L. L. (1999). Development of food preferences. Annual Review of Nutrition, 19(1), 41- 62. doi:10.1146/annurev.nutr.19.1.41 Birch, L. L., & Marlin, D. W. (1982). I don't like it; I never tried it: Effects of exposure on two-year-old children's food preferences. Appetite, 3(4), 353-360. doi:10.1016/S0195- 6663(82)80053-6 Blair, D., & Sobal, J. (2006). Luxus consumption: Wasting food resources through overeating. Agriculture and Human Values, 23(1), 63-74. doi:10.1007/s10460-004- 5869-4 Blanche, M. T., Durrheim, K., & Painter, D. (2006). Research in practice: Applied methods for the social sciences (M. T. Blanche, K. Durrheim, & D. Painter Eds. Second ed.): Juta and Company Ltd. Blichfeldt, B. S., Mikkelsen, M., & Gram, M. (2015). When it stops being food: The edibility, ideology, procrastination, objectification and internalization of household

110

food waste. Food, Culture and Society: An International Journal of MultidisciplinaryResearch, 18(1), 89-105. doi:10.2752/175174415x14101814953963 Block, L. G., Grier, S. A., Childers, T. L., Davis, B., Ebert, J. E. J., Kumanyika, S., . . . van Ginkel Bieshaar, M. N. G. (2011). From nutrients to nurturance: A conceptual introduction to food well-being. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 30(1), 5-13. doi:10.1509/jppm.30.1.5 Block, L. G., Keller, P. A., Vallen, B., Williamson, S., Birau, M. M., Grinstein, A., . . . Tangari, A. H. (2016). The squander sequence: Understanding food waste at each stage of the consumer decision-making process. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 35(2), 292-304. doi:10.1509/jppm.15.132 Bloom, J. (2010). American farms: Growing waste, selling perfection. In American wasteland: how America throws away nearly half of its food (and what we can do about it) (pp. 91-116). Cambridge, MA: Da Capo Press. Bloom, J. (2011). American wasteland: How America throes away nearly half of its food (and what we can can do about it). Cambridge, MA: Lifelong Books/Da Capo Press. Branen, L., Fletcher, J., & Hilbert, L. (2002). Snack consumption and waste by preschool children served “cute” versus regular snacks. Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior, 34(5), 279-282. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/S1499-4046(06)60107-3 Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77-101. doi:10.1191/1478088706qp063oa Bruhn, C. M. (1995). Consumer and retailer satisfaction with the quality and size of California peaches and nectarines. Journal of Food Quality, 18(3), 241-256. doi:doi:10.1111/j.1745-4557.1995.tb00378.x Brundtland, G. H., Khalid, M., Agnelli, S., Al-Athel, S., & Chidzero, B. (1987). Our common future: The Report of the World Commission on Environment and Developmen. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Pres. Buckingham, D. (2007). Selling childhood? Children and consumer culture. Journal of Children and Media, 1(1), 15-24. doi:10.1080/17482790601005017 Buckler, C., & Creech, H. (2014). Shaping the future we want: the final report of the UN Decade of Education for Sustainable Development 2005 to 2014. Bunn, D., Feenstra, G. W., Lynch, L., & Somer, R. (1990). Consumer Acceptance of Cosmetically Imperfect Produce. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 24(2), 268-279. doi:10.1111/j.1745-6606.1990.tb00269.x Burton, D. M., & May, S. (2016). Parents’/carers’ perceptions and experiences of growing, preparing and eating their own fruit and vegetables as part of the ‘Field to Fork’ project. Education 3-13, 44(6), 751-764. doi:10.1080/03004279.2015.1078573 Buzby, J. C., Hyman, J., Stewart, H., & Wells, H. F. (2011). The Value of Retail- and Consumer-Level Fruit and Vegetable Losses in the United States. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 45(3), 492-515. doi:10.1111/j.1745-6606.2011.01214.x Canaris, I. (1995). Growing foods for growing minds: Integrating gardening and nutrition education into the total curriculum. Children's Environments, 12(2), 264-270. Cappellini, B. (2009). The sacrifice of re-use: the travels of leftovers and family relations. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 8(6), 365-375. doi:10.1002/cb.299 Cappellini, B., & Parsons, E. (2012). Practising thrift at dinnertime: mealtime leftovers, sacrifice and family membership. The Sociological Review, 60(S2), 121-134. doi:doi:10.1111/1467-954X.12041 Cardello, A. V. (1994). Consumer expectations and their role in food acceptance. In H. J. H. MacFie & D. M. H. Thomson (Eds.), Measurement of Food Preferences (pp. 253- 297). Boston, MA: Springer US.

111

Carù, A., & Cova, B. (2003). Revisiting Consumption Experience:A More Humble but Complete View of the Concept. Marketing Theory, 3(2), 267-286. doi:10.1177/14705931030032004 Chaboud, G., & Daviron, B. (2017). Food losses and waste: Navigating the inconsistencies. Global Food Security, 12, 1-7. doi:10.1016/j.gfs.2016.11.004 Chawla, L. (1988). Children's concern for the natural environment. Children's Environments Quarterly, 5(3), 13-20. Chu, Y. L., Farmer, A., Fung, C., Kuhle, S., Storey, K. E., & Veugelers, P. J. (2013). Involvement in home meal preparation is associated with food preference and self- efficacy among Canadian children. Public Health Nutr, 16(1), 108-112. doi:10.1017/S1368980012001218 Chu, Y. L., Storey, K. E., & Veugelers, P. J. (2014). Involvement in meal preparation at home is associated with better diet quality among canadian children. Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior, 46(4), 304-308. doi:10.1016/j.jneb.2013.10.003 Cicatiello, C., Franco, S., Pancino, B., & Blasi, E. (2016). The value of food waste: An exploratory study on retailing. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 30, 96- 104. doi:10.1016/j.jretconser.2016.01.004 Clayton, R., & Carnegie, T. (2017, 19 February). 'Ugly' fruit and vege to be sold in supermarkets at lower prices. Stuff. Retrieved from https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/89497690/ugly-fruit-and-vege-to-be-sold-in- supermarkets-at-lower-prices Clough, P., & Nutbrown, C. (2012). A student's guide to methodology : justifying enquiry (3rd ed. ed.). Los Angeles & London. Cohen, S., & Horm-Wingerd, D. (1993). Children and the environment: Ecological awareness among preschool children. Environment and Behavior, 25(1), 103-120. doi:10.1177/0013916593251005 Colapinto, C. K., Fitzgerald, A., Taper, L. J., & Veugelers, P. J. (2007). Children’s Preference for Large Portions: Prevalence, Determinants, and Consequences. Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 107(7), 1183-1190. doi:10.1016/j.jada.2007.04.012 Connell, P. M., Brucks, M., & Nielsen, J. H. (2014). How childhood advertising exposure can create biased product evaluations that persist into adulthood. Journal of Consumer Research, 41(1), 119-134. doi:10.1086/675218 Connell, P. M., Finkelstein, S. R., Scott, M. L., & Vallen, B. (2016). Helping lower income parents reduce the risk of food waste resulting from children's aversion to healthier food options: Comment on Daniel (2016). Social Science & Medicine, 150, 286-289. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2015.12.004 Cooremans, K., & Geuens, M. (2019). Same but different: Using anthropomorphism in the battle against food waste. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 38(2), 232-245. doi:10.1177/0743915619827941 Corbin, J. M. (2008). Basics of qualitative research : Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (3rd ed. ed.). Los Angeles: SAGE Publications. Cox, J., & Downing, P. (2007). Food Behaviour Consumer Research: Quantitative Phase. Retrieved from WRAP, UK: http://www.wrap.org.uk/sites/files/wrap/Food%20behaviour%20consumer%20researc h%20quantitative%20jun%202007.pdf. Creswell, J. W. (2009). Editorial: Mapping the field of mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 3(2), 95-108. doi:10.1177/1558689808330883 Curhan, R. C. (1973). Shelf space allocation and profit maximization in mass retailing. Journal of Marketing, 37(3), 54-60. doi:10.1177/002224297303700308

112

Daniel, C. (2016). Economic constraints on taste formation and the true cost of healthy eating. Soc Sci Med, 148, 34-41. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2015.11.025 Darbyshire, P., MacDougall, C., & Schiller, W. (2005). Multiple methods in qualitative research with children: More insight or just more? Qualitative Research, 5(4), 417- 436. doi:10.1177/1468794105056921 Davey, S. S., & Richards, C. (2013). Supermarkets and private standards: unintended consequences of the audit ritual. Agriculture and Human Values, 30(2), 271-281. doi:10.1007/s10460-012-9414-6 de Hooge, I. E., Oostindjer, M., Aschemann-Witzel, J., Normann, A., Loose, S. M., & Almli, V. L. (2017). This apple is too ugly for me! Consumer preferences for suboptimal food products in the supermarket and at home. Food Quality and Preference, 56, 80- 92. doi:10.1016/j.foodqual.2016.09.012 de Hooge, I. E., van Dulm, E., & van Trijp, H. C. M. (2018). Cosmetic specifications in the food waste issue: Supply chain considerations and practices concerning suboptimal food products. Journal of Cleaner Production, 183, 698-709. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.02.132 De Moura, S. L. (2007). Determinants of food rejection amongst school children. Appetite, 49(3), 716-719. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2007.08.006 Deetz, S. (1996). Crossroads—Describing Differences in Approaches to Organization Science: Rethinking Burrell and Morgan and Their Legacy. Organization Science, 7(2), 191-207. doi:10.1287/orsc.7.2.191 Deng, X., & Srinivasan, R. (2013). When do transparent packages increase (or decrease) food consumption? Journal of Marketing, 77(4), 104-117. doi:10.1509/jm.11.0610 Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2003). Collecting and interpreting qualitative materials (2nd ed. ed.). Thousand Oaks, California, US. Devin, B., & Richards, C. (2018). Food waste, power, and corporate social responsibility in the Australian food supply chain. Journal of Business Ethics, 150(1), 199-210. doi:10.1007/s10551-016-3181-z Devlin, W. J., & Bokulich, A. (2015). Kuhn's Structure of scientific revolutions - 50 years on. Cham. Donovan, D. (2016). How children represent sustainable consumption through participatory action research and co-design of visual narratives. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 40(5), 562-574. doi:10.1111/ijcs.12301 Douglas, M. (2003). Purity and danger. In An analysis of concept of pollution and taboo (pp. 203). Dovey, T. M., Aldridge, V. K., Dignan, W., Staples, P. A., Gibson, E. L., & Halford, J. C. (2012). Developmental differences in sensory decision making involved in deciding to try a novel fruit. Br J Health Psychol, 17(2), 258-272. doi:10.1111/j.2044- 8287.2011.02036.x Drenten, J., Okleshen Peters, C., & Boyd Thomas, J. (2008). An exploratory investigation of the dramatic play of preschool children within a grocery store shopping context. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 36(10), 831-855. doi:10.1108/09590550810901017 Edwards, F., & Mercer, D. (2007). Gleaning from gluttony: an Australian youth subculture confronts the ethics of waste. Australian Geographer, 38(3), 279-296. doi:10.1080/00049180701639174 Edwards, F., & Mercer, D. (2013). Food waste in Australia: The freegan response. The Sociological Review, 60(2_suppl), 174-191. doi:10.1111/1467-954x.12044

113

Ehrlich, P. R., & Harte, J. (2015). Food security requires a new revolution. International Journal of Environmental Studies, 72(6), 908-920. doi:10.1080/00207233.2015.1067468 Ekström, K. M. (2006). Consumer socialization revisted. In R. W. Belk (Ed.), Research in Consumer Behaviour (Vol. 10, pp. 71-98): Emerald Group Publishing Limited. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1016/S0885-2111(06)10004-6. doi:10.1016/S0885- 2111(06)10004-6 Ekström, K. M. (2010). Consumer socialisation in families. In D. W. Marshall (Ed.), Understanding Children as Consumers. London, UK: SAGE Publications Ltd. Elo, S., & Kyngäs, H. (2008). The qualitative content analysis process. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 62(1), 107-115. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04569.x Emas, R. (2015). The concept of sustainable development: Definition and defining principles. Retrieved from https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/5839GSDR%202015_SD_c oncept_definiton_rev.pdf Engdahl, I., & Rabušicová, M. (2011). Children’s voices about the state of the earth. International Journal of Early Childhood, 43(2), 153. doi:10.1007/s13158-011-0031- 0 Eriksson, M. (2012). Retail Food Wastage, a Case Study Approach to Quantities and Causes. (Licentiate Thesis, Swedish University of Agricultual Sciences, Uppsala, Sweden), Retrieved from http://pub.epsilon.slu.se/9264/ Eriksson, M., Ghosh, R., Mattsson, L., & Ismatov, A. (2017). Take-back agreements in the perspective of food waste generation at the supplier-retailer interface. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 122, 83-93. doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.02.006 Eriksson, M., & Spångberg, J. (2017). Carbon footprint and energy use of food waste management options for fresh fruit and vegetables from supermarkets. Waste Management, 60, 786-799. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2017.01.008 Eriksson, M., Strid, I., & Hansson, P.-A. (2012). Food losses in six Swedish retail stores: Wastage of fruit and vegetables in relation to quantities delivered. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 68, 14-20. doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2012.08.001 Evans, D. (2011). Blaming the consumer – once again: The social and material contexts of everyday food waste practices in some English households. Critical Public Health, 21(4), 429-440. doi:10.1080/09581596.2011.608797 Evans, D. (2012). Binning, gifting and recovery: The conduits of disposal in household food consumption. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 30(6), 1123-1137. doi:10.1068/d22210 Evans, D., Campbell, H., & Murcott, A. (2013). A brief pre-history of food waste and the social sciences. The Sociological Review, 60(S2), 5-26. doi:10.1111/1467-954x.12035 Fallon, A. E., Rozin, P., & Pliner, P. (1984). The child's conception of food: The development of food rejections with special reference to disgust and contamination sensitivity. Child Development, 55(2), 566-575. doi:10.2307/1129968 FAO. (2003). World agriculture: Towards 2015/2030. In Vol. 2019. J. Bruinsma (Ed.), An FAO perspective. Retrieved from http://www.fao.org/3/y4252e/y4252e06.htm FAO. (2013). Food wastage footprint: Impacts on natural resources. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations. FAO. (2014). Save food: Global initiative on food loss and waste reduction. Definitional framework of food loss. Rome, Italy: Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). Retrieved from http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/user_upload/save- food/PDF/FLW_Definition_and_Scope_2014.pdf.

114

FAO. (2015). FAO and the 17 sustainable development goals. Rome, Italy: Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) Retrieved from http://www.fao.org/3/a-i4997e.pdf. FAO. (2017a). The future of food and agriculture – Trends and challenges (978-92-5- 109551-5). Retrieved from Rome: http://www.fao.org/publications/fofa/en/ FAO. (2017b). Save food: Global initiative on food loss and waste reduction. Retrieved from http://www.fao.org/save-food/resources/keyfindings/infographics/fruit/en/. FAO. (2019). Policy Support and Governance. Retrieved from http://www.fao.org/policy- support/policy-themes/food-loss-food-waste/en/ FAO, IFAD, & WFP. (2014). The State of Food Insecurity in the World 2014. Strengthening the enabling environment for food security and nutrition. Rome, Italy: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations Retrieved from http://www.fao.org/3/a-i4030e.pdf. Farr-Wharton, G., Foth, M., & Choi, J. H.-J. (2014). Identifying factors that promote consumer behaviours causing expired domestic food waste. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 13(6), 393-402. doi:10.1002/cb.1488 Farrell, A., Tayler, C., & Tennent, L. (2002). Early Childhood Services: What can Children Tell us? Australasian Journal of Early Childhood, 27(3), 13-17. doi:10.1177/183693910202700304 Feenstra, F., Muzellec, L., de Faultrier, B., & Boulay, J. (2015). Edutainment experiences for children in retail stores, from a child’s perspective. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 26, 47-56. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2015.05.004 Fernqvist, F., & Ekelund, L. (2014). Credence and the effect on consumer liking of food – A review. Food Quality and Preference, 32, 340-353. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2013.10.005 Figueiredo, J. (n.d.). Children join the fight against food waste with ugly fruit and veg. Retrieved from https://foodtank.com/news/2017/08/ugly-fruit-and-veg-campaign/ Flanagan, K., Lipinski, B., & Goodwin, L. (2019). SDG Target 12.3 on Food Loss and Waste: 2019 Progress Report. Retrieved from https://champions123.org/2019- progress-report/ Foley, J. A. (2011). Can we feed the world & sustain the planet? Scientific American, 305(5), 60. doi:10.1038/scientificamerican1111-60 Foley, J. A., DeFries, R., Asner, G. P., Barford, C., Bonan, G., Carpenter, S. R., . . . Snyder, P. K. (2005). Global consequences of land use. Science, 309(5734), 570-574. doi:10.1126/science.1111772 Foley, J. A., Ramankutty, N., Brauman, K. A., Cassidy, E. S., Gerber, J. S., Johnston, M., . . . Zaks, D. P. (2011). Solutions for a cultivated planet. Nature, 478(7369), 337-342. doi:10.1038/nature10452 Francis, J. E., & Davis, T. (2015). Adolescents' sustainability concerns and reasons for not consuming sustainably. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 39(1), 43-50. doi:10.1111/ijcs.12150 Fuchs, D., Kalfagianni, A., & Arentsen, M. (2009). Retail Power, Private Standards, and Sustainability in the Global Food System. In Corporate Power in Global Agrifood Governance. (pp. 28-59): MIT Press - Journals. Fulponi, L. (2006). Private voluntary standards in the food system: The perspective of major food retailers in OECD countries. Food Policy, 31(1), 1-13. doi:10.1016/j.foodpol.2005.06.006 Ganglbauer, E., Fitzpatrick, G., & Comber, R. (2013). Negotiating food waste: Using a practice lens to inform design. ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum. Interact., 20(2), 1-25. doi:10.1145/2463579.2463582

115

Ganglbauer, E., Fitzpatrick, G., & Molzer, G. (2012). Creating visibility: Understanding the design space for food waste. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Mobile and Ubiquitous Multimedia, Ulm, Germany. Garnett, T. (2011). Where are the best opportunities for reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the food system (including the food chain)? Food Policy, 36, S23-S32. doi:10.1016/j.foodpol.2010.10.010 Gaumer, C. J., & Arnone, C. (2009). Grocery store observation: Parent-child interaction in family purchases. Journal of Food Products Marketing, 16(1), 1-18. doi:10.1080/10454440802537207 Gelman, S. A., & Echelbarger, M. (2019a). Children and consumer behavior: Insights, questions, and new frontiers. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 29(2), 344-349. doi: 10.1002/jcpy.1096 Gelman, S. A., & Echelbarger, M. (2019b). Children, Object Value, and Persuasion. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 29(2), 309-327. doi:10.1002/jcpy.1097 Gephart, R. (1999). Paradigms and research methods. Paper presented at the Research methods forum. Ghauri, P. N. (2005). Research methods in business studies : A practical guide (3rd ed. ed.). Harlow, England, New York: Financial Times Prentice Hall. Gibbs, L., Staiger, P. K., Johnson, B., Block, K., Macfarlane, S., Gold, L., . . . Ukoumunne, O. (2013). Expanding Children’s Food Experiences: The Impact of a School-Based Kitchen Garden Program. Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior, 45(2), 137- 146. doi:10.1016/j.jneb.2012.09.004 Gibson, F. (2007). Conducting focus groups with children and young people: strategies for success. Journal of Research in Nursing, 12(5), 473–483. doi:10.1177/17449871079791 Gibson, J. E. (2012). Interviews and Focus Groups With Children: Methods That Match Children's Developing Competencies. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 4(2), 148- 159. doi:10.1111/j.1756-2589.2012.00119.x Gillick, S., & Quested, T. (2018). Household food waste: restated data for 2007-2015. Retrieved from: http://www.wrap.org.uk/content/courtauld-2025-baseline-and- restated-household-food-waste-figures Gjerris, M., & Gaiani, S. (2013). Household food waste in Nordic countries: Estimations and ethical implications. Nordic Journal of Applied Ethics, 7(1), 6-23. doi:10.5324/eip.v7i1.1786 Göbel, C., Langen, N., Blumenthal, A., Teitscheid, P., & Ritter, G. (2015). Cutting food waste through cooperation along the food supply chain. Sustainability, 7(2), 1429- 1445. doi:10.3390/su7021429 Godfray, H. C., Beddington, J. R., Crute, I. R., Haddad, L., Lawrence, D., Muir, J. F., . . . Toulmin, C. (2010). Food security: the challenge of feeding 9 billion people. Science, 327(5967), 812-818. doi:10.1126/science.1185383 Godfray, H. C., & Garnett, T. (2014). Food security and sustainable intensification. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 369(1639), 20120273. doi:10.1098/rstb.2012.0273 Gooch, M., Felfel, A., & Marenick, N. (2010). Food waste in Canada: Opportunities to increase the competitiveness of Canada’s agri-food sector, while simultaneously improving the environment. Goerge Morris Centre, Value Chain Management Centre, 1-16. Graham-Rowe, E., Jessop, D. C., & Sparks, P. (2014). Identifying motivations and barriers to minimising household food waste. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 84, 15-23. doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2013.12.005

116

Gram, M. (2015). Buying food for the family: Negotiations in parent/child supermarket shopping: An observational study from Denmark and the United States. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 44(2), 169-195. doi:10.1177/0891241614533125 Gram, M., & Grønhøj, A. (2016). Meet the good child. ‘Childing’ practices in family food co-shopping. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 40(5), 511-518. doi:10.1111/ijcs.12295 Grewal, L., Hmurovic, J., Lamberton, C., & Reczek, R. W. (2019). The self-perception connection: Why consumers devalue unattractive produce. Journal of Marketing, 83(1), 89-107. doi:10.1177/0022242918816319 Grimm, P. (2010). Social Desirability Bias. In J. Sheth & N. Malhotra (Eds.), Wiley International Encyclopedia of Marketing.doi: 10.1002/9781444316568.wiem02057 Grønhøj, A. (2016). Consumer behaviours: Teaching children to save energy. Nature Energy, 1(8). doi:10.1038/nenergy.2016.108 Grønhøj, A., & Thøgersen, J. (2009). Like father, like son? Intergenerational transmission of values, attitudes, and behaviours in the environmental domain. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 29(4), 414-421. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2009.05.002 Gummesson, E. (2005). Qualitative research in marketing. European Journal of Marketing, 39(3/4), 309-327. doi:10.1108/03090560510581791 Gunders, D. (2012). Wasted: How America is Losing Up to 40 Percent of Its Food from Farm to Fork to Landfill (August 2012 IP: 12-06-B). Retrieved from https://www.nrdc.org/sites/default/files/wasted-food-IP.pdf Gustavsson, J., Cederberg, C., Sonesson, U., van Otterdijk, R., & Meybeck, A. (2011). Global food losses and food waste - Extent, Causes and prevention. Retrieved from http://www.fao.org/docrep/014/mb060e/mb060e.pdf. Halloran, A., Clement, J., Kornum, N., Bucatariu, C., & Magid, J. (2014). Addressing food waste reduction in Denmark. Food Policy, 49, 294-301. doi:10.1016/j.foodpol.2014.09.005 Haselhoff, V., Young, B., Faupel, U., & Holzmüller, H. (2014). Strategies of children and parents during shopping for groceries. Young Consumers, 15(1), 17-36. doi:10.1108/yc-03-2013-00366 Havercamp, K. (2015). Food waste as “excess”: Consumer culture and society and its impact on food waste. University of Bern. Heary, C., & Hennessy, E. (2006). Focus groups versus individual interviews with children: A comparison of data. The Irish Journal of Psychology, 27(1-2), 58-68. doi:10.1080/03033910.2006.10446228 Heary, C. M., & Hennessy, E. (2002). The Use of Focus Group Interviews in Pediatric Health Care Research. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 27(1), 47-57. doi:10.1093/jpepsy/27.1.47 Heath, P., Houston-Price, C., & Kennedy, O. B. (2011). Increasing food familiarity without the tears. A role for visual exposure? Appetite, 57(3), 832-838. doi:10.1016/j.appet.2011.05.315 Hebrok, M., & Boks, C. (2017). Household food waste: Drivers and potential intervention points for design – An extensive review. Journal of Cleaner Production, 151, 380- 392. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.03.069 Heim, S., Stang, J., & Ireland, M. (2009). A Garden Pilot Project Enhances Fruit and Vegetable Consumption among Children. Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 109(7), 1220-1226. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jada.2009.04.009 Helmert, J. R., Symmank, C., Pannasch, S., & Rohm, H. (2017). Have an eye on the buckled cucumber: An eye tracking study on visually suboptimal foods. Food Quality and Preference, 60, 40-47. doi:10.1016/j.foodqual.2017.03.009

117

Henning, E., van Rensburg, W., & Smit, B. (2004). Finding your way in qualitative research (First ed.): Pretoria: Van Schaik Publishers. Hermsdorf, D., Rombach, M., & Bitsch, V. (2017). Food waste reduction practices in German food retail. Br Food J, 119(12), 2532-2546. doi:10.1108/BFJ-06-2017-0338 Hingley, M. K. (2005). Power imbalanced relationships: cases from UK fresh food supply. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 33(8), 551-569. doi:10.1108/09590550510608368 Hirschheim, R., Klein, H. K., & Lyytinen, K. (1996). Exploring the intellectual structures of information systems development: A social action theoretic analysis. Accounting, Management and Information Technologies, 6(1), 1-64. doi:10.1016/0959- 8022(96)00004-5 Hittleman, D. R., & Simon, A. J. (1997). Interpreting educational research: An introduction for consumers of research: ERIC. Holsten, J. E., Deatrick, J. A., Kumanyika, S., Pinto-Martin, J., & Compher, C. W. (2012). Children’s food choice process in the home environment. A qualitative descriptive study. Appetite, 58(1), 64-73. doi:10.1016/j.appet.2011.09.002 Horton, J., Hadfield-Hill, S., Christensen, P., & Kraftl, P. (2013). Children, young people and sustainability: introduction to special issue. Local Environment, 18(3), 249-254. doi:10.1080/13549839.2012.760766 Hyde, K., Smith, A., Smith, M., & Henningsson, S. (2001). The challenge of waste minimisation in the food and drink industry: A demonstration project in East Anglia, UK. Journal of Cleaner Production, 9(1), 57–64. doi:10.1016/s0959-6526(00)00050- 0 Imram, N. (1999). The role of visual cues in consumer perception and acceptance of a food product. Nutrition & Food Science, 99(5), 224-230. doi:10.1108/00346659910277650 Institution of Mechanical Engineers. (2013). Global food: waste not, want not. Retrieved from London: http://www.imeche.org/policy-and-press/reports/detail/global-food- waste-not-want-not Intermarché. (2014). Inglorious fruits & vegetables. Retrieved from http://itm.marcelww.com/inglorious/. Jaeger, S. R., Antúnez, L., Ares, G., Johnston, J. W., Hall, M., & Harker, F. R. (2016). Consumers’ visual attention to fruit defects and disorders: A case study with apple images. Postharvest Biology and Technology, 116, 36-44. doi:10.1016/j.postharvbio.2015.12.015 Jaeger, S. R., Harker, R., Triggs, C. M., Gunson, A., Campbell, R. L., Jackman, R., & Requejo-Jackman, C. (2011). Determining Consumer Purchase Intentions: The Importance of Dry Matter, Size, and Price of Kiwifruit. Journal of Food Science, 76(3), S177-S184. doi:10.1111/j.1750-3841.2011.02084.x Jaeger, S. R., Machín, L., Aschemann-Witzel, J., Antúnez, L., Harker, F. R., & Ares, G. (2018). Buy, eat or discard? A case study with apples to explore fruit quality perception and food waste. Food Quality and Preference, 69, 10 - 20. doi:10.1016/j.foodqual.2018.05.004 Janssen, S. E. M. (2018). Consumers' quality assessment and purchase intentions of suboptimal fruits and vegetables. (BSc), Wageningen University and Research, Wageningen, Netherlands. John, D. R. (1999). Consumer socialization of children: A retrospective look at twenty-five years of research. Journal of Consumer Research, 26(3), 183-213. doi:10.1086/209559

118

Jones, B. A., Madden, G. J., & Wengreen, H. J. (2014). The FIT Game: preliminary evaluation of a gamification approach to increasing fruit and vegetable consumption in school. Preventive Medicine, 68, 76-79. doi:10.1016/j.ypmed.2014.04.015 Kader, A. A. (2013). Postharvest technology of horticultural crops - An overview from farm to fork. Ethiop .J. Appl. Sci. Technol.(Special Issue No.1), 1-8. Kahrİman-Öztürk, D., Olgan, R., & Güler, T. (2012). Preschool children’s ideas on sustainable development: How preschool children perceive three pillars of sustainability with the regard to 7r*. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 12(4), 2987-2995. Kaipia, R., Dukovska‐Popovska, I., & Loikkanen, L. (2013). Creating sustainable fresh food supply chains through waste reduction. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 43(3), 262-276. doi:10.1108/ijpdlm-11-2011-0200 Kantor, L. S., Lipton, K., Manchester, A., & Oliveira, V. (1997). Estimating and addressing America’s food losses. Food Review, 20, 1-12. Kearney, J. (2010). Food consumption trends and drivers. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 365(1554), 2793-2807. doi:10.1098/rstb.2010.0149 Kennedy, C., Kools, S., & Krueger, R. (2001). Methodological considerations in children’s focus groups. Nursing Research, 50(3), 184--187. doi:10.1097/00006199-200105000- 00010 Ketron, S., & Naletelich, K. (2019). Victim or beggar? Anthropomorphic messengers and the savior effect in consumer sustainability behavior. Journal of Business Research, 96, 73-84. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.11.004 Kirby, S. D., Baranowski, T., Reynolds, K. D., Taylor, G., & Binkley, D. (1995). Children's fruit and vegetable intake: Socioeconomic, adult-child, regional, and urban-rural influences. Journal of Nutrition Education, 27(5), 261-271. doi:10.1016/S0022- 3182(12)80794-1 Kneafsey, M. (2008). Reconnecting consumers, producers, and food : Exploring alternatives (English ed. ed.). Oxford, UK. Koch, C., & Koch, E. C. (2003). Preconceptions of taste based on color. The Journal of Psychology, 137(3), 233-242. doi:10.1080/00223980309600611 Koivupuro, H.-K., Hartikainen, H., Silvennoinen, K., Katajajuuri, J.-M., Heikintalo, N., Reinikainen, A., & Jalkanen, L. (2012). Influence of socio-demographical, behavioural and attitudinal factors on the amount of avoidable food waste generated in Finnish households. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 36(2), 183-191. doi:10.1111/j.1470-6431.2011.01080.x Kortright, R., & Wakefield, S. (2011). Edible backyards: a qualitative study of household food growing and its contributions to food security. Agriculture and Human Values, 28(1), 39-53. doi:10.1007/s10460-009-9254-1 Krueger, R. A., & Casey, M. A. (2009). Focus Groups: A practical guide for applied reseach (4 ed.). USA: Sage Publications, Inc. Kulikovskaja, V., & Aschemann-Witzel, J. (2017). Food waste avoidance actions in food retailing: The case of Denmark. Journal of International Food & Agribusiness Marketing, 29(4), 328-345. doi:10.1080/08974438.2017.1350244 Kummu, M., de Moel, H., Porkka, M., Siebert, S., Varis, O., & Ward, P. J. (2012). Lost food, wasted resources: global food supply chain losses and their impacts on freshwater, cropland, and fertiliser use. Sci Total Environ, 438, 477-489. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2012.08.092

119

Larsson, B., Andersson, M., & Osbeck, C. (2010). Bringing environmentalism home: Children’s influence on family consumption in the nordic countries and beyond. Childhood, 17(1), 129-147. doi:10.1177/0907568209351554 Lawson, D. F., Stevenson, K. T., Peterson, M. N., Carrier, S. J., Seekamp, E., & Strnad, R. (2019). Evaluating climate change behaviors and concern in the family context. Environmental Education Research, 25(5), 678-690. doi:10.1080/13504622.2018.1564248 Lawton, N. (2019). Climate change strike: School children across New Zealand take second day of action. Stuff. Retrieved from: https://www.stuff.co.nz/environment/climate- news/112375195/climate-change-strike-school-children-across-new-zealand-take- second-day-of-action Le Borgne, G., Sirieix, L., & Costa, S. (2018). Perceived probability of food waste: Influence on consumer attitudes towards and choice of sales promotions. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 42, 11-21. doi:10.1016/j.jretconser.2018.01.004 Lebersorger, S., & Schneider, F. (2011). Discussion on the methodology for determining food waste in household waste composition studies. Waste Management, 31(9-10), 1924- 1933. doi:10.1016/j.wasman.2011.05.023 Lebersorger, S., & Schneider, F. (2014). Food loss rates at the food retail, influencing factors and reasons as a basis for waste prevention measures. Waste Manag, 34(11), 1911- 1919. doi:10.1016/j.wasman.2014.06.013 Lee, D., Sönmez, E., Gómez, M. I., & Fan, X. (2017). Combining two wrongs to make two rights: Mitigating food insecurity and food waste through gleaning operations. Food Policy, 68, 40-52. doi:10.1016/j.foodpol.2016.12.004 Lee, S.-M., Lee, K.-T., Lee, S.-H., & Song, J.-K. (2013). Origin of human colour preference for food. Journal of Food Engineering, 119(3), 508-515. doi:10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2013.06.021 Leksrisompong, P. P., Whitson, M. E., Truong, V. D., & Drake, M. A. (2012). Sensory attributes and consumer acceptance of sweet potato cultivars with varying flesh colors. Journal of Sensory Studies, 27(1), 59-69. doi:10.1111/j.1745- 459X.2011.00367.x Lipinski, B., Hansen, C., Lomax, J., Kitinoja, L., Waite, R., & Searchinger, T. (2013). "Reducing Food Loss and Waste". Creating a Sustainable Food Future. World Resources Institute. Washington, DC. Retrieved from: http://www.worldresourcesreport.org. Loebnitz, N., & Grunert, K. G. (2015). The effect of food shape abnormality on purchase intentions in China. Food Quality and Preference, 40, 24-30. doi:10.1016/j.foodqual.2014.08.005 Loebnitz, N., & Grunert, K. G. (2018). The impact of abnormally shaped vegetables on consumers’ risk perception. Food Quality and Preference, 63, 80-87. doi:10.1016/j.foodqual.2017.08.004 Loebnitz, N., Schuitema, G., & Grunert, K. G. (2015). Who buys oddly shaped food and why? Impacts of food shape abnormality and organic labeling on purchase intentions. Psychology & Marketing, 32(4), 408-421. doi:10.1002/mar.20788 Lombart, C., Millan, E., Normand, J.-M., Verhulst, A., Labbé-Pinlon, B., & Moreau, G. (2019). Consumer perceptions and purchase behavior toward imperfect fruits and vegetables in an immersive virtual reality grocery store. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 48, 28-40. doi:10.1016/j.jretconser.2019.01.010 Longfield, K., Moorsmith, R., Peterson, K., Fortin, I., Ayers, J., & Lupu, O. (2016). Qualitative Research for Social Marketing: One Organization’s Journey to Improved Consumer Insight. The Qualitative Report, 21(1), 71-86. Retrieved from

120

https://search-proquest- com.ezproxy.otago.ac.nz/docview/1761257147?accountid=14700 Louis, D., & Lombart, C. (2018). Retailers’ communication on ugly fruits and vegetables: What are consumers’ perceptions? Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 41, 256-271. doi:10.1016/j.jretconser.2018.01.006 Loussaïef, L., Cacho-Elizondo, S., Pettersen, I. B., & Tobiassen, A. E. (2014). Do CSR actions in retailing really matter for young consumers? A study in France and Norway. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 21(1), 9-17. doi:10.1016/j.jretconser.2013.09.005 Love Food Hate Waste New Zealand. (2017). Introducing The Odd Bunch: Why you should love imperfect fruit and vegetables. Retrieved from https://lovefoodhatewaste.co.nz/introducing-the-odd-bunch/. Lucchini, R. (1996). Theory, method and traingualtion in the study of street children. Childhood, 3, 167-170. doi:10.1177/0907568296003002004 Lundqvist, J., Charlotte, d. F., & Molden, D. (2008). Saving Water: From Field to Fork – Curbing Losses and Wastage in the Food Chain. SIWI Policy Brief. Retrieved from http://www.fao.org/sustainable-food-value-chains/library/details/en/c/266050/ Mackey, G. (2012). To know, to decide, to act: The young child’s right to participate in action for the environment. Environmental Education Research, 18(4), 473-484. doi:10.1080/13504622.2011.634494 Makhal, A., Robertson, K., Thyne, M., & Mirosa, M. (under review). Normalising the 'ugly' to reduce food waste: Exploring the socialisations that form appearance preferences for fresh fruits and vegetables. Journal of Consumer Behaviour. Makhal, A., Thyne, M., Robertson, K., Mirosa, M. (2020). I don’t like wonky carrots”: An exploration of children’s perceptions of suboptimal fruits and vegetables. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 54, 101945. doi: 10.1016/j.jretconser.2019.101945 Mallinson, L. J., Russell, J. M., & Barker, M. E. (2016). Attitudes and behaviour towards convenience food and food waste in the United Kingdom. Appetite, 103, 17-28. doi:10.1016/j.appet.2016.03.017 Marshall, D. (2014). Co-operation in the supermarket aisle: young children’s accounts of family food shopping. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 42(11/12), 990-1003. doi:10.1108/IJRDM-08-2013-0165 Marshall, D., O'Donohoe, S., & Kline, S. (2007). Families, food, and pester power: Beyond the blame game? Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 6(4), 164-181. doi:10.1002/cb.217 Marshall, D. W., & Todd, S. J. (2010). Understanding Children as Consumers. London, UNITED KINGDOM: SAGE Publications. Mattsson, K. (2014). Why do we throw away edible fruits and vegetables? (2014: 5EN). Retrieved from http://www2.jordbruksverket.se/download/18.37e9ac46144f41921cdb38b/139867157 3352/ra14_5eng.pdf. McMichael, A. J., Powles, J. W., Butler, C. D., & Uauy, R. (2007). Food, livestock production, energy, climate change, and health. The Lancet, 370(9594), 1253-1263. doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(07)61256-2 Meeusen, C. (2014). The intergenerational transmission of environmental concern: The influence of parents and communication patterns within the family. The Journal of Environmental Education, 45(2), 77-90. doi:10.1080/00958964.2013.846290 Meiselman, H. L. (1996). The contextual basis for food acceptance, food choice and food intake: the food, the situation and the individual. In H. L. Meiselman & H. J. H. MacFie (Eds.), Food Choice, Acceptance and Consumption (pp. 239-263). Boston, MA: Springer US.

121

Melbye, E. L., Onozaka, Y., & Hansen, H. (2017). Throwing it all away: Exploring affluent consumers’ attitudes toward wasting edible food. Journal of Food Products Marketing, 23(4), 416-429. doi:10.1080/10454446.2015.1048017 Mena, C., Adenso-Diaz, B., & Yurt, O. (2011). The causes of food waste in the supplier– retailer interface: Evidences from the UK and Spain. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 55(6), 648-658. doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2010.09.006 Metcalfe, J. J., & Fiese, B. H. (2018). Family food involvement is related to healthier dietary intake in preschool-aged children. Appetite, 126, 195-200. doi:10.1016/j.appet.2018.03.021 Milne, R. (2013). Arbiters of waste: Date labels, the consumer and knowing good, safe food. The Sociological Review, 60(2_suppl), 84-101. doi:10.1111/1467-954x.12039 Mirosa, M., Mainvil, L., Horne, H., & Mangan-Walker, E. (2016). The social value of rescuing food, nourishing communities. British Food Journal, 118(12), 3044-3058. doi:10.1108/BFJ-04-2016-0149 Moore, E. S., Wilkie, W. L., & Lutz, R. J. (2002). Passing the Torch: Intergenerational Influences as a Source of Brand Equity. Journal of Marketing, 66(2), 17-37. doi:10.1509/jmkg.66.2.17.18480 Morgan, M., Gibbs, S., Maxwell, K., & Britten, N. (2002). Hearing children's voices: Methodological issues in conducting focus groups with children aged 7-11 years. Qualitative Research, 2(1), 5-20. doi:10.1177/1468794102002001636 Morrow, V. (2001). Using qualitative methods to elicit young people's perspectives on their environments: some ideas for community health initiatives. Health Education Research, 16(3), 255-268. doi:10.1093/her/16.3.255 Mortimer, G. (2015). Taste over waste: ugly food movement winning friends. Retrieved from https://theconversation.com/taste-over-waste-ugly-food-movement-winning-friends- 38987 Moschis, G. P., & Churchill, G. A. J. (1978). Consumer socialization: A theoretical and empirical analysis. Journal of Marketing Research, 15(4), 599-609. doi:10.2307/3150629 Mourad, M. (2016). Recycling, recovering and preventing “food waste”: Competing solutions for food systems sustainability in the united states and france. Journal of Cleaner Production, 126, 461-477. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.03.084 Myers, M. D., & Avison, D. (2002). Qualitative Research in Information Systems. In. Retrieved from https://methods.sagepub.com/book/qualitative-research-in- information-systems doi:10.4135/9781849209687 Neff, R. A., Kanter, R., & Vandervijvere, S. (2015). Reducing food loss and waste while improving the public’s health. Health Affairs, 34(11), 1821-1829. doi:10.1377/hlthaff.2015.0647 Neff, R. A., Spiker, M., Rice, C., Schklair, A., Greenberg, S., & Leib, E. B. (2019). Misunderstood food date labels and reported food discards: A survey of U.S. consumer attitudes and behaviors. Waste Management, 86, 123-132. doi:10.1016/j.wasman.2019.01.023 Nellemann, C., MacDevette, M., Manders, T., Eickhout, B., Svihus, B., Prins, A. G., & Kaltenborn, B. P. (2009). The environmental food crisis – The environment’s role in averting future food crises. A UNEP rapid response assessment. Norway: Birkeland Trykkeri AS. Nicholes, M. J., Quested, T. E., Reynolds, C., Gillick, S., & Parry, A. D. (2019). Surely you don’t eat parsnip skins? Categorising the edibility of food waste. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 147, 179-188. doi: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.03.004

122

Nicolaï, B. M., Bulens, I., Baerdemaeker, J. D., Ketelaere, B. D., Hertog, M. L. A. T. M., Verboven, P., & Lammertyn, J. (2009). Chapter 15 - Non-destructive Evaluation: Detection of External and Internal Attributes Frequently Associated with Quality and Damage. In W. J. Florkowski, R. L. Shewfelt, B. Brueckner, & S. E. Prussia (Eds.), Postharvest Handling (Second Edition) (pp. 421-441). San Diego: Academic Press. Nørgaard, M. K., Bruns, K., Christensen, P. H., & Mikkelsen, M. R. (2007). Children's influence on and participation in the family decision process during food buying. Young Consumers, 8(3), 197-216. doi: 10.1108/17473610710780945 O'Brien, M. (2008). Rubbish Industries. In A crisis of waste? Understanding the rubbish society. New York, USA: Routledge. O'Brien, M. (2013). A ‘lasting transformation’ of capitalist surplus: From food stocks to feedstocks. The Sociological Review, 60(S2), 192-211. doi:10.1111/1467-954x.12045 O'Kane, G. (2016). A moveable feast: Exploring barriers and enablers to food citizenship. Appetite, 105, 674-687. doi:10.1016/j.appet.2016.07.002 O’Dougherty, M., Story, M., & Stang, J. (2006). Observations of Parent-Child Co-Shoppers in Supermarkets: Children’s Involvement in Food Selections, Parental Yielding, and Refusal Strategies. Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior, 38(3), 183-188. doi:10.1016/j.jneb.2005.11.034 O’Neill, C., & Buckley, J. (2019). “Mum, did you just leave that tap running?!” The role of positive pester power in prompting sustainable consumption. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 43(3), 253-262. doi:10.1111/ijcs.12505 Olsen, A., Ritz, C., Kramer, L., & Moller, P. (2012). Serving styles of raw snack vegetables. What do children want? Appetite, 59(2), 556-562. doi:10.1016/j.appet.2012.07.002 Olson, J. C. (1978). Inferential belief formation in the cue utilization process. Paper presented at the Association for Consumer Research, Ann Abor, MI. http://acrwebsite.org/volumes/9509/volumes/v05/NA-05 Osborn, S. (2016). Wastage of food. Encyclopedia of Food and Health, 447-452. doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-384947-2.00733-9 Östergren, K., Gustavsson, J., Bos-Brouwers, H., Timmermans, T., Hansen, O.-J., Møller, H., . . . Redlingshöfer, B. (2014). FUSIONS Definitional Framework for Food Waste. Retrieved from http://www.eu- fusions.org/phocadownload/Publications/FUSIONS%20Definitional%20Framework %20for%20Food%20Waste%202014.pdf. Paakki, M., Sandell, M., & Hopia, A. (2016). Consumer's reactions to natural, atypically colored foods: An investigation using blue potatoes. Journal of Sensory Studies, 31(1), 78-89. doi:10.1111/joss.12193 Page, B., Sharp, A., Lockshin, L., & Sorensen, H. (2018). Parents and children in supermarkets: Incidence and influence. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 40, 31-39. doi:10.1016/j.jretconser.2017.08.023 Palmer, J. A. (1993). From Santa Claus to sustainability: Emergent understanding of concepts and issues in environmental science. International Journal of Science Education, 15(5), 487-495. doi:10.1080/0950069930150503 Papargyropoulou, E., Lozano, R., Steinberger, J. K., Wright, N., & bin Ujang, Z. (2014). The food waste hierarchy as a framework for the management of food surplus and food waste. Journal of Cleaner Production, 76, 106-115. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.04.020 Parfitt, J., Barthel, M., & Macnaughton, S. (2010). Food waste within food supply chains: quantification and potential for change to 2050. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci, 365(1554), 3065-3081. doi:10.1098/rstb.2010.0126

123

Parizeau, K., von Massow, M., & Martin, R. (2015). Household-level dynamics of food waste production and related beliefs, attitudes, and behaviours in Guelph, Ontario. Waste Manag, 35, 207-217. doi:10.1016/j.wasman.2014.09.019 Parmer, S. M., Salisbury-Glennon, J., Shannon, D., & Struempler, B. (2009). School gardens: An experiential learning approach for a nutrition education program to increase fruit and vegetable knowledge, preference, and consumption among second-grade students. Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior, 41(3), 212-217. doi:10.1016/j.jneb.2008.06.002 Pearson, D., Minehan, M., & Wakefield-Rann, R. (2013). Food waste in Australian households: Why does it occur? Locale, 3, 118-132. Pettersson, A., Olsson, U., & Fjellström, C. (2004). Family life in grocery stores – A study of interaction between adults and children. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 28(4), 317-328. doi:10.1111/j.1470-6431.2004.00389.x Pimentel, D., Kirby, C., & Shroff, A. (1993). The relationship between “cosmetic standards” for foods and pesticide use. In D. Pimentel & H. Lehman (Eds.), The Pesticide Question: Environment, Economics, and Ethics (pp. 85-105). Boston, MA: Springer US. Poelman, A. A. M., & Delahunty, C. M. (2011). The effect of preparation method and typicality of colour on children’s acceptance for vegetables. Food Quality and Preference, 22(4), 355-364. doi:10.1016/j.foodqual.2011.01.001 Porat, R., Lichter, A., Terry, L. A., Harker, R., & Buzby, J. (2018). Postharvest losses of fruit and vegetables during retail and in consumers’ homes: Quantifications, causes, and means of prevention. Postharvest Biology and Technology, 139, 135-149. doi:10.1016/j.postharvbio.2017.11.019 Porpino, G., Parente, J., & Wansink, B. (2015). Food waste paradox: antecedents of food disposal in low income households. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 39(6), 619-629. doi:10.1111/ijcs.12207 Porpino, G., Wansink, B., & Parente, J. (2016). Wasted Positive Intentions: The Role of Affection and Abundance on Household Food Waste. Journal of Food Products Marketing, 22(7), 733-751. doi:10.1080/10454446.2015.1121433 Powers, N. J., & Heifner, R. G. (2001). Federal grade standards for fresh produce-linkages to pesticide use. (Agriculture Information Bulletin No. 675). Retrieved from: https://naldc.nal.usda.gov/download/CAT93504338/PDF Pretty, J. N., Ball, A. S., Lang, T., & Morison, J. I. L. (2005). Farm costs and food miles: An assessment of the full cost of the UK weekly food basket. Food Policy, 30(1), 1-19. doi:10.1016/j.foodpol.2005.02.001 Priefer, C., Jörissen, J., & Bräutigam, K.-R. (2016). Food waste prevention in Europe – A cause-driven approach to identify the most relevant leverage points for action. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 109, 155-165. doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2016.03.004 Principato, L. (2018). The Complexity of Food Waste at Consumption Level: Definitions, Data, Causes and Impacts. In Food Waste at Consumer Level: A Comprehensive Literature Review (pp. 1-13). Cham: Springer International Publishing. Quested, T., & Johnson, H. (2009). Household food and drink waste in the UK (1-84405-430- 6). Retrieved from Branbury, UK: http://www.wrap.org.uk/sites/files/wrap/Household_food_and_drink_waste_in_the_U K_-_report.pdf. Quested, T. E., Marsh, E., Stunell, D., & Parry, A. D. (2013). Spaghetti soup: The complex world of food waste behaviours. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 79, 43-51. doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2013.04.011

124

Raak, N., Symmank, C., Zahn, S., Aschemann-Witzel, J., & Rohm, H. (2017). Processing- and product-related causes for food waste and implications for the food supply chain. Waste Management, 61, 461-472. doi:10.1016/j.wasman.2016.12.027 Ratcliffe, M. M., Merrigan, K. A., Rogers, B. L., & Goldberg, J. P. (2011). The effects of school garden experiences on middle school-aged students’ knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors associated with vegetable consumption. Health Promotion Practice, 12(1), 36-43. doi:10.1177/1524839909349182 Reardon, T., & Farina, E. (2002). The rise of private food quality and safety standards: illustrations from Brazil. The International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, 4(4), 413–421. doi:10.1016/s1096-7508(02)00067-8 Reisch, L., Eberle, U., & Lorek, S. (2013). Sustainable food consumption: An overview of contemporary issues and policies. Sustainability: Science, Practice and Policy, 9(2), 7-25. doi:10.1080/15487733.2013.11908111 Reynolds, C., Mirosa, M., & Clothier, B. (2016). New Zealand’s Food Waste: Estimating the Tonnes, Value, Calories and Resources Wasted. Agriculture, 6(1), 9. doi:10.3390/agriculture6010009 Rockström, J., Steffen, W., Noone, K., Persson, Å., Chapin, F. S., III., Lambin, E. F., . . . Foley, J. A. (2009). A safe operating space for humanity. Nature, 461(7263), 472-475. doi:10.1038/461472a Rodgers, D. M. (2005). Children as social movement participants. In A. K. David & R. Katherine Brown (Eds.), Sociological Studies of Children and Youth (Vol. 11, pp. 239-259): Emerald Group Publishing Limited. Rohm, H., Oostindjer, M., Aschemann-Witzel, J., Symmank, C., Almli, V. L., de Hooge, I. E., . . . Karantininis, K. (2017). Consumers in a Sustainable Food Supply Chain (COSUS): Understanding Consumer Behavior to Encourage Food Waste Reduction. Foods, 6(12). doi:10.3390/foods6120104 Royte, E. (2016). How ‘Ugly’ Fruits and Vegetables Can Help Solve World Hunger. National Geographic. Rozin, P. (1977). The significance of learning in food selection: some biology, psychology and sociology of science. In L. M. Barker, M. Best, & M. Domjan (Eds.), Learning Mechanisms in Food Selection (pp. 557–589). Waco, Texas, USA: Baylor University Press. Rozin, P. (1990). Development in the food domain. Developmental Psychology, 26(4), 555- 562. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.26.4.555 Rozin, P. (2005). The meaning of food in our lives: A cross-cultural perspective on eating and well-being. Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior, 37, S107-S112. doi:10.1016/S1499-4046(06)60209-1 Rust, L. (1993). Parents and children shopping together: a new approach to the qualitative analysis of observational data. (Observations). Journal of Advertising Research, 33(4), 65. Saldana, J. (2009). Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers: SAGE Publications. Schanes, K., Dobernig, K., & Gözet, B. (2018). Food waste matters - A systematic review of household food waste practices and their policy implications. Journal of Cleaner Production, 182(C), 978-991. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.02.030 Schifferstein, H. N. J., Wehrle, T., & Carbon, C.-C. (2018). Consumer expectations for vegetables with typical and atypical colors: The case of carrots. Food Quality and Preference. doi:10.1016/j.foodqual.2018.10.002 Schmidt, K., & Matthies, E. (2018). Where to start fighting the food waste problem? Identifying most promising entry points for intervention programs to reduce

125

household food waste and overconsumption of food. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 139, 1-14. doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2018.07.023 Scholz, K., Eriksson, M., & Strid, I. (2015). Carbon footprint of supermarket food waste. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 94, 56-65. doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2014.11.016 Scott, M. L., & Vallen, B. (2019). Expanding the lens of food well-being: An examination of contemporary marketing, policy, and practice with an eye on the future. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 38(2), 127-135. doi:10.1177/0743915619831647 Shafiee-Jood, M., & Cai, X. (2016). Reducing food loss and waste to enhance food security and environmental sustainability. Environmental Science & Technology, 50(16), 8432-8443. doi:10.1021/acs.est.6b01993 Silvennoinen, K., Katajajuuri, J.-M., Hartikainen, H., Heikkilä, L., & Reinikainen, A. (2014). Food waste volume and composition in Finnish households. British Food Journal, 116(6), 1058-1068. doi: 10.1108/BFJ-12-2012-0311 Sirieix, L., Lála, J., & Kocmanová, K. (2017). Understanding the antecedents of consumers' attitudes towards doggy bags in restaurants: Concern about food waste, culture, norms and emotions. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 34, 153-158. doi:10.1016/j.jretconser.2016.10.004 Smil, V. (2004). Improving efficiency and reducing waste in our food system. Environmental Sciences, 1(1), 17-26. doi:10.1076/evms.1.1.17.23766 Southerton, D., & Yates, L. (2015). Exploring food waste through the lens of social practice theories. Waste Management and Sustainable Consumption, 133-149. doi:10.9774/GLEAF.9781315757261_10 Stancu, V., Haugaard, P., & Lahteenmaki, L. (2016). Determinants of consumer food waste behaviour: two routes to food waste. Appetite, 96, 7-17. doi:10.1016/j.appet.2015.08.025 Stangherlin do Carmo, I., Ribeiro, J. L. D., & Barcellos, M. (2019). Consumer behaviour towards suboptimal food products: a strategy for food waste reduction. British Food Journal, 121(10), 2396-2412. doi:10.1108/BFJ-12-2018-0817 Steenkamp, E. M. J.-B. (1990). Conceptual model of the quality perception process. Journal of Business Research, 21, 309-333. doi:10.1016/0148-2963(90)90019-a Stefan, V., van Herpen, E., Tudoran, A. A., & Lähteenmäki, L. (2013). Avoiding food waste by Romanian consumers: The importance of planning and shopping routines. Food Quality and Preference, 28(1), 375-381. doi:10.1016/j.foodqual.2012.11.001 Steffen, W., Richardson, K., Rockstrom, J., Cornell, S. E., Fetzer, I., Bennett, E. M., . . . Sorlin, S. (2015). Sustainability. Planetary boundaries: guiding human development on a changing planet. Science, 347(6223), 1259855. doi:10.1126/science.1259855 Stenmarck, Å., Hanssen, O. J., Silvennoinen, K., & Katajajuuri, J.-M. (2011). Initiatives on prevention of food waste in the retail and wholesale trades (B1988). Retrieved from Copenhagen, Denmark: http://www.ivl.se/download/18.343dc99d14e8bb0f58b75fc/1445517505356/B1988.p df. Stewart, D. W., & Shamdasani, P. N. (1990). Focus Groups, Theory and Practice (Vol. 20). USA: Sage Publications. Strong, C. (1998). The impact of environmental education on children’s knowledge and awareness of environmental concerns. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 16(6), 349- 355. doi:10.1108/02634509810237523 Stuart, T. (2009a). Farming: potatoes have eyes. In S. Profitt (Ed.), Waste: uncovering the global food scandal (pp. 99-123). London, England: Penguin Books.

126

Stuart, T. (2009b). Waste - uncovering the global food scandal. London, England: Pengiun Books. Stuhmcke, S. M. (2012). Children as change agents for sustainability : an action research case study in a kindergarten. (Professional Doctorate), Queensland University of Technology., Queensland, Australia. Retrieved from https://eprints.qut.edu.au/61005/ The Guardian. (2019). School pupils call for radical climate action in UK-wide strike. The Guardian. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/feb/15/uk-climate-change-strike- school-pupils-children-environment-protest Thompson, D., Bhatt, R., Vazquez, I., Cullen, K. W., Baranowski, J., Baranowski, T., & Liu, Y. (2015). Creating action plans in a serious video game increases and maintains child fruit-vegetable intake: a randomized controlled trial. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 12(1), 39. doi:10.1186/s12966-015-0199- z Thunberg, G. (2019). No one is too small to make a difference: Penguin. Thyberg, K. L., & Tonjes, D. J. (2016). Drivers of food waste and their implications for sustainable policy development. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 106, 110- 123. doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2015.11.016 Thyne, M., Robertson, K., Watkins, L., & Casey, O. (2019). Retailers targeting children with set collection promotions: the child’s perspective. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 47(6), 643-658. doi:10.1108/IJRDM-08-2017-0180 Tsalis, G. (2020). What’s the deal? Consumer price involvement and the intention to purchase suboptimal foods. A cross-national study. Food Quality and Preference, 79, 103747. doi:10.1016/j.foodqual.2019.103747 Tuorila, H., & Hartmann, C. (2019). Consumer responses to novel and unfamiliar foods. Current Opinion in Food Science. doi:10.1016/j.cofs.2019.09.004 Tuorila, H., Meiselman, H. L., Bell, R., Cardello, A. V., & Johnson, W. (1994). Role of sensory and cognitive information in the enhancement of certainty and liking for novel and familiar foods. Appetite, 23(3), 231-246. doi:10.1006/appe.1994.1056 Turner, B. (2014). Cut-price ‘ugly’ supermarket food won’t reduce waste – here’s why. Retrieved from https://theconversation.com/cut-price-ugly-supermarket-food-wont- reduce-waste-heres-why-35375 United Nations. (2015a). Transforming our world: The 2030 agenda for sustainable development. (A/RES/70/1). Retrieved from https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/21252030%20Agenda%20f or%20Sustainable%20Development%20web.pdf. United Nations. (2015b). World population prospects: The 2015 revision, key findings and advance tables. (Working Paper No. ESA/P/WP.241). New York, USA: United Nations Retrieved from https://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/publications/files/key_findings_wpp_2015.pdf. United Nations General Assembly. (2005). Resolution a/601/world summit outcome. Retrieved from https://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/migration/generalassembly/docs/ globalcompact/A_RES_60_1.pdf Van Boxstael, S., Devlieghere, F., Berkvens, D., Vermeulen, A., & Uyttendaele, M. (2014). Understanding and attitude regarding the shelf life labels and dates on pre-packed food products by Belgian consumers. Food Control, 37, 85-92. doi:10.1016/j.foodcont.2013.08.043 van der Horst, K., Ferrage, A., & Rytz, A. (2014). Involving children in meal preparation. Effects on food intake. Appetite, 79, 18-24. doi:10.1016/j.appet.2014.03.030

127 van Giesen, R. I., & de Hooge, I. E. (2019). Too ugly, but I love its shape: Reducing food waste of suboptimal products with authenticity (and sustainability) positioning. Food Quality and Preference, 75, 249-259. doi:10.1016/j.foodqual.2019.02.020 Vermeer, W. M., Steenhuis, I. H. M., & Seidell, J. C. (2010). Portion size: A qualitative study of consumers’ attitudes toward point-of-purchase interventions aimed at portion size. Health Education Research, 25(1), 109-120. doi:10.1093/her/cyp051 Waitt, G., & Phillips, C. (2015). Food waste and domestic refrigeration: A visceral and material approach. Social & Cultural Geography, 17(3), 359-379. doi:10.1080/14649365.2015.1075580 Wake, S. J. (2007). Children's gardens: Answering the call of the child? Built Environment, 33(4), 441-453. doi:10.2148/benv.33.4.441 Wand, Y., & Weber, R. (1995). On the deep structure of information systems. Information Systems Journal, 5(3), 203-223. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2575.1995.tb00108.x Wansink, B., & Payne, C. (2010). What Is Beautiful Tastes Good: Visual Cues, Taste, and Willingness to Pay. Advances in Consumer Research. Vol. 37. M. C. Campbell, J. Inman, & R. Pieters (Eds.), (pp. 49-52). doi: 10.2139/ssrn.2473603 Ward, S. (1974). Consumer socialization. Journal of Consumer Research, 1(2), 1-14. doi:10.1086/208584 Waste Not Consulting. (2015). New Zealand Food Waste Audits. Retrieved from https://www.wasteminz.org.nz/pubs/new-zealand-food-waste-audits-2014-2015/ Watkins, L., Aitken, R., & Ford, J. (2019). Measuring and enhancing children’s sustainable consumption and production literacy. Young Consumers, ahead-of-print(ahead-of- print). doi:10.1108/yc-11-2018-0880 Watne, T., & Brennan, L. (2011). Behavioral change starts in the family: The role of family communication and implications for social marketing. Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing, 23(4), 367-386. doi:10.1080/10495142.2011.623526 Watson, M., & Meah, A. (2013). Food, waste and safety: Negotiating conflicting social anxieties into the practices of domestic provisioning. The Sociological Review, 60(S2), 102-120. doi:10.1111/1467-954x.12040 Westenhoefer, J. (2001). Establishing good dietary habits – capturing the minds of children. Public Health Nutrition, 4(1a), 125-129. doi:10.1079/PHN2000107 Wheeler, T., & von Braun, J. (2013). Climate change impacts on global food security. Science, 341(6145), 508. doi:10.1126/science.1239402 White, A., Gallegos, D., & Hundloe, T. (2011). The impact of fresh produce specifications on the Australian food and nutrition system: a case study of the north Queensland banana industry. Public Health Nutr, 14(8), 1489-1495. doi:10.1017/S1368980010003046 White, K., Lin, L., Dahl, D. W., & Ritchie, R. J. B. (2016). When do consumers avoid imperfections? Superficial packaging damage as a contamination cue. Journal of Marketing Research, 53(1), 110-123. doi:10.1509/jmr.12.0388 Williams, H., Wikström, F., Otterbring, T., Löfgren, M., & Gustafsson, A. (2012). Reasons for household food waste with special attention to packaging. Journal of Cleaner Production, 24, 141-148. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2011.11.044 Wilson, G., & Wood, K. (2004). The influence of children on parental purchases during supermarket shopping. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 28(4), 329-336. doi:doi:10.1111/j.1470-6431.2004.00393.x Wilson, N. L. W., Rickard, B. J., Saputo, R., & Ho, S.-T. (2017). Food waste: The role of date labels, package size, and product category. Food Quality and Preference, 55, 35- 44. doi:10.1016/j.foodqual.2016.08.004

128

Wong, S.-L., Hsu, C.-C., & Chen, H.-S. (2018). To buy or not to buy? Consumer attitudes and purchase intentions for suboptimal food. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 15(7), 1431. doi: 10.3390/ijerph15071431 WRAP. (2008). Food waste report v2: the food we waste. In. Retrieved from http://www.wrap.org.uk/sites/files/wrap/Household_food_and_drink_waste_in_the_U K_-_report.pdf. Wright, L. T., Nancarrow, C., & Kwok, P. M. H. (2001). Food taste preferences and cultural influences on consumption. British Food Journal, 103(5), 348-357. doi:10.1108/00070700110396321 Wunderlich, S. M., & Martinez, N. M. (2018). Conserving natural resources through food loss reduction: Production and consumption stages of the food supply chain. International Soil and Water Conservation Research, 6(4), 331-339. doi:10.1016/j.iswcr.2018.06.002 Youth AgSummit. (2017). Fighting food waste, one “ugly fruit” at a time. Retrieved from https://www.youthagsummit.com/community/blog/fighting-food-waste-one-ugly- fruit-at-a-time/ Yue, C., Alfnes, F., & Jensen, H. H. (2009). Discounting Spotted Apples: Investigating Consumers' Willingness to Accept Cosmetic Damage in an Organic Product. Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, 41(01), 29-46. doi:10.1017/s1074070800002534 Yue, C., Jensen, H. H., Mueller, D. S., Nonnecke, G. R., Bonnet, D., & Gleason, M. L. (2007). Estimating Consumers’ Valuation of Organic and Cosmetically Damaged Apples. HortScience, 42(6), 1366–1371. doi: 10.21273/hortsci.42.6.1366 Zeithaml, V. A. (1988). Consumer perceptions of price, quality, and value: A means-end model and synthesis ofevidence. Journal of Marketing Research, 52(3), 2-22. doi:10.2307/1251446

129

Appendices

130

Appendix A (I): Ethics Form

UNIVERSITY OF OTAGO HUMAN ETHICS COMMITTEE

APPLICATION FORM: CATEGORY A

1. University of Otago staff member responsible for project:

Surname First Name Title

Robertson Kirsten Dr 2. Department/School:

Marketing

3. Contact details of staff member responsible:

[email protected]

4. Title of project:

Understanding consumer socialisations for appearance-based preferences for fresh fruits and vegetables

5. Indicate project type and names of other investigators and students:

Staff Co-investigators 2 Names: Assoc. Prof Maree Thyne

Dr Miranda Mirosa

1 Student Researchers Names: Annesha Bernadette Makhal

131

Level of Study (PhD, Masters, Hons): PhD

x External Researchers Names:

Institute/Company:

6. Is this a repeated class teaching activity?

If YES and this application is to continue a previously approved repeated class teaching activity, provide Reference Number:

N/A

7. Fast-Track procedure

If YES, provide a robust justification on the need for urgency:

N/A

8. When will recruitment and data collection commence?

01/ 09/2017

What is the planned conclusion date of the study?

31/03/2018

9. Funding of project

This project will be internally funded

10. Brief description in lay terms of the purpose of the project (approx. 75 words):

Food waste has emerged as an important sustainability issue. Consumer perceptions about the edibility and inedibility of food contribute to food waste. Foods that deviate from standard appearance criteria are often perceived to be inedible and are thus rejected. This phenomenon is amplified for fresh fruits and vegetables, which comprise the largest share of food waste in the human food supply chain.

132

Studies to date have shown that consumers have a low tolerance for visually imperfect foods; however, research has not explored how these attitudes develop. Therefore, the objective of this study is to examine the socialisation of appearance-based food preferences. It is hoped that the outcomes will contribute to policies aimed at reducing food waste through the relaxation of food standards and the inclusion of suboptimal, but perfectly edible fresh fruits and vegetables. This project is being conducted in partial fulfilment for the requirements for a PhD.

11. Aim and description of project:

Food waste has emerged as one of the most urgent sustainability issues to address; an issue which has far-reaching environmental, social and economic consequences (Gustavsson, Cederberg, Sonesson, van Otterdijk, & Meybeck, 2011). A significant part of food waste is contributed to through consumer perceptions around edibility and inedibility of fresh produce. Some foods are wasted because they deviate from the standard appearance criteria, and are thus believed to be inedible. On the basis of these beliefs, retailers have developed product specifications catering to the shape, size, colour, weight and the overall appearance of fresh produce, particularly fresh fruits and vegetables (Göbel, Langen, Blumenthal, Teitscheid, & Ritter, 2015; Halloran, Clement, Kornum, Bucatariu, & Magid, 2014). These foods have been termed as suboptimal foods by Aschemann-Witzel and colleagues (2015) because they are safe to eat, but consumers perceive them to be undesirable or inedible as they deviate from the optimal or normal appearance, although appearance-based defects have nothing to do with the quality and safety of consuming the food. Owing to the structural power which retailers have in the food supply chain (Fuchs, Kalfagianni, & Arentsen, 2009; Hingley, 2005), they impose appearance standards (also called private standards) which apply to all stages of the food supply chain, particularly the earlier stages of the food supply chain (Devin & Richards, 2016). As a result, large quantities of visually imperfect, but fresh and perfectly edible fruits and vegetables, are either diverted to animal feed or left unharvested, or simply landfilled, before they reach the consumer (Stuart, 2009). The Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) of the United Nations (UN) reports that fresh fruits and vegetables comprise the largest share of foods being wasted because of pre- and post-harvest grading systems determined by retailer-set quality standards, and wastage of fresh fruits and vegetables at the consumer level, which altogether comprise of 15-30% by weight of all the food wasted in the world (Gustavsson et al., 2011). Globally, the amount of fresh fruits and vegetables wasted equates to almost half the amount that is produced in the world (FAO, 2014).

In response to the present day media attention towards food waste, some retailers have introduced suboptimal foods at reduced prices (Aschemann-Witzel et al., 2016). For example, in New Zealand, Countdown launched the ‘The Odd Bunch’ in early 2017 and marketed them as “fruits and vegies that

133

deserve to be tasted and not wasted”. Similarly, many supermarkets have partnered with food banks from around the country to donate surplus food. These initiatives have also drawn research interests that aim to understand consumer tolerance and willingness to consume and buy suboptimal foods (Aschemann-Witzel, de Hooge, et al., 2017; Aschemann-Witzel, Jensen, et al., 2017; de Hooge et al., 2017; Loebnitz & Grunert, 2015; Loebnitz et al., 2015). The general conclusion from these studies is that consumers have medium to low tolerance for suboptimal fresh fruit and vegetables. While these studies have focussed on consumer attitudes, values, and sensitivity to price discounts for suboptimal foods, no study has looked to understand why consumers share negative attitudes towards suboptimal foods. This study, therefore, hopes to begin to address the question of why consumers report negative attitudes towards optically imperfect fresh fruits and vegetables. Devin and Richards (2016) state that with retailers discarding fresh produce that do not live up to the marketable cosmetic standards, consumers have been “trained” to buy perfect produce, which could explain why consumers have shown low preferences for suboptimal foods. In other words, consumers have been normalised to expect perfect looking fresh fruits and vegetables from modern supermarkets. Aschemann-Witzel et al. (2015) state that socio-cultural developments have framed the way in which consumers perceive food and have influenced consumer involvement with foods. For example, T. E. Quested et al. (2013) and Osborn (2016) indicate the importance of the generational differences in handling food and waste, with older generations being more involved and thrifty with handling food as compared to younger generations. Since, food socialisation begins at an early age (Fallon et al., 1984), with children being fast learners, active observers of their surroundings, and agents of their own socialisations (Maccoby, 2015), this study aims to understand how early and why consumers develop appearance-based food preferences. Thus, the objective of this study is to understand how early consumers are socialised to form preferences for fresh fruits and vegetables, and how these socialisations influence their perceptions of edibility and preferences based on visual cues of optimality and suboptimality.

12. Researcher/instructor experience and qualifications in this research area:

Kirsten Robertson

BA (Otago); MSc (Otago); PhD (Otago)

Kirsten, Maree, and Miranda have a lot of research experience in consumer behaviour and have supervised a number of research projects within the area of consumer behaviour. They also have experience conducting research with children. Miranda has a lot of experience with studying consumer food waste behaviour and is working on a number of projects in the same research field.

134

13. Participants:

The participants required for this study are children from 5 to 12 years of age. In line with the objective of the study, i.e. to understand how early and why consumers have appearance-based preferences for fresh fruits and vegetables, it is most fitting to have children as participants of the study to understand how they are socialised to form these preferences. Generally, after the age of 5, a child’s ability to decipher explicit differences and make choices for himself/herself improves. As children mature, they exhibit the ability to make more independent choices, articulate reasons for their choice, exhibit more thoughtfulness and are able to consider the perspectives of their family, peers, and other social circles (John, 1999). For this reason children between 5 and 12 years of age are appropriate for the study.

Additionally, given that the participants for this study are below the age of 17 and hence vulnerable, we have checked the Vulnerable Children’s Act 2014. Given that our study does not involve regular contact, as defined in the VCA, the research does not meet the requirements of the VCA. It is worth noting, however, that the researchers involved in this study will be submitting Vetting Service and Consent Forms to the New Zealand Police to meet the requirements of the school in which the study is to be conducted (George Street Normal School).

13(a) Population from which participants are drawn: Primary school children in Dunedin from age 5 to 12.

13(b) Inclusion and exclusion criteria:

None

It is possible that some children are allergic to certain types of fruit or vegetables. To account for their safety, a list of possible fruit and vegetables, which will be used in the study, will be mentioned in the information sheet for parents. We will ensure that shopping lists given to children who are allergic to certain fruit and/or vegetables do not contain the fruit or vegetables they are allergic to. This is because, although participation in the study does not involve eating food, the children will be offered the opportunity to keep the fruit and vegetables that they collect during the study.

13 (c) Estimated numbers of participants: Approximately 80 depending on student availability and parental consent received

13(d) Age range of participants: 5-12 (age groups: 5-6, 7-8, 9-10, and 11-12)

135

13(e) Method of recruitment: The children will be recruited from a primary school in Dunedin.

13(f) Specify and justify any payment or reward to be offered: After the children complete a shopping activity, they may keep the fruits and vegetables that they have chosen.

14. Methods and Procedures:

To study how and when preferences towards (sub) optimal foods develop, an exploratory procedure is adopted that comprises two tasks. The first task will require children to take part in a simple choice study where they will be asked to select fruits and vegetables based on a shopping list. The produce used in this task will vary in appearance (optimal versus suboptimal). The second task will involve a focus group interview with groups of ten children at a time. The methodology for data collection has been developed following the guidelines for children as subjects in ASTM International (2003, report number: E2299-03), Krueger and Casey (2009); Stewart and Shamdasani (1990), and Issanchou (2015). The design of the study will require 20 children each from four age groups 5-6, 7-8, 9-10, and 11-12. The data will be collected within the school’s premises. The principal of the school will be contacted for permission to conduct the data collection in a room within the school premises. The following steps highlight the process of data collection:

Step 1: Observation: Shopping Activity (approximately 10 minutes)

This task will involve a mock shopping activity. Children will be given a shopping list instructing them to select fruit and vegetables from a mock store and an assortment of fruits and vegetables will be laid out for them to select from. The observations will be carried out in a vacant room within the school premises to provide a familiar environment (Krueger & Casey, 2009). It has been suggested that when involving children in focus groups, it is important to engage them in a game or a task activity to increase their interest and to help prevent their attention from waning (Krueger & Casey, 2009; Issanchou, 2015; Stewart & Shamdasani, 1990). For the observation task, the materials that will be used are:

 shopping carts/baskets

 paper bags

 Suboptimal and optimal varieties of fresh fruits and vegetables: four types of vegetables and four types of fruits will be chosen. Each type of fruit and vegetable will have equal quantities of optimal and suboptimal varieties. The fruits and vegetables used in this study will be chosen from the following list

 Apples

136

 Pears

 Bananas

 Oranges

 Mandarins

 Lemons

 Bell peppers

 Onions

 Potatoes

 Kumaras

 Tomatoes

 Carrots

 Cameras for audio and video recording

In the shopping activity the children will be given a shopping list. Every shopping list will depict the name of a fruit and a vegetable, and every child will be required to pick up 2 quantities of the fruit and the vegetable mentioned in their shopping list.

An example of a shopping list that will be used:

SHOPPING LIST

ITEM Quantity Apples 2 Potatoes 2

Before the fruit and vegetable selection is made, the researcher will ensure that every shopping list given to a child is read out to him/her. This is done to ensure that every

137

participant understands the task. After the children make their selection, they will be directed to another researcher who will note the appearance of the fruits and vegetables selected, put the selected fruits and vegetables in a paper bag and give it to the child. The children will be video recorded while they are filling their baskets with the items on their shopping list. All attempts will be made to record converstations and facial expressions while the children make their choices. The purpose of the observations is to see how children make fruit and vegetable choices, and whether perceptions of (sub)optimality is reflected in their choices.

Instructions for this task will be as follows:

We will be shopping for some fruits and vegetables today. You will be given a shopping basket and a shopping list, and you will find two tables that have different fruits and vegetables. I would like you to pick up for yourself the fruits and vegetables mentioned in your shopping list, put it in your shopping basket and bring it to me. I will put the items that you pick up into a paper bag and hand it over to you to take home. Here you have (person A) to demonstrate the task for you (a demonstrter will demonstrate the task so that the children understand what to do)

Step 2. Focus group interviews (approximately 45 minutes)

After the children have made their choices they will be directed to a table where they will be briefly interviewed about the differences they perceive in vegetables and fruit that vary in appearance. Apples and carrots that vary in appearance will be used to help facilitate the discussion. As each age group comprises 20 participants, two groups per age group will be formed with ten memebers each. A focus group interview is particularly valuable and more reliable for collecting data from children (Krueger & Casey, 2009; Stewart & Shamdasani, 1990). The focus group discussions will be audio and video recorded. The following instructions have been taken from Stewart and Shamdasani (1990):

Now we are going to discuss fruit and vegetables. Before we get into our discussion, let me make a few requests to you. First, you should know that we are video recording the session so that I can refer back to the discussion when I write my report. Do speak up and lets have one person speak at a time. I will ensure that everyone gets a turn. Don’t worry about what I think or what the people beside you think. There are no right or wrong answers. We are here to exchange opinions and have fun while we discuss. Why don’t we start by introducing ourselves?

138

Example:

The following questions will be asked during the focus group interviews. However, the order of the questions will depend upon the way the interview proceeds:

139

Instruction for the interviewer Question

APPLE: Let us imagine you can have one of these apples to eat (show suboptimal B and optimal A apple), which apple would you pick? Why this apple? Here I have two apples, one is marked B and the other is marked Would you eat the other apple? Why/Why not? A. You can have a look at the two apples as I pass it around.

If a child says they personally Imagine this was the only apple left at home (show the would not eat the suboptimal suboptimal apple). You ask for a snack and you are told apple, ask them this question: you can either eat the apple or have nothing. Would you then eat the apple?

For children who state that they So, you have mentioned that you wouldn’t eat the apple. would not eat the apple: Do you think this apple is OK for other people to eat? Why / Why not?

Do you sometimes have apples at home that look like this (pointing to the suboptimal apple)?

 Who eats them?  Do they all get eaten?

For children who say that some of  What happens to the apples that do not get eaten? them do not get eaten, ask:

CARROT:

Here I have two carrots, one is marked B and the other is marked

140

A. You can have a look at the two Let us imagine you can have one of these carrots to eat carrots as I pass it around. (show suboptimal B and optimal A carrot), which carrot would you pick? Why this carrot?

If a child says they personally Would you eat the other carrot? Why/Why not? would not eat the suboptimal carrot, ask them this question: Imagine this was the only carrot left at home (show the suboptimal carrot). You ask for a snack and you are told that you can either eat this carrot or have nothing. Would you then eat this carrot? For children who state that they wouldn’t eat the carrot: So you have mentioned that you wouldn’t eat this carrot. Do you think it is ok for others to eat this carrot? Why/Why not?

Do you sometimes have carrots at home that look like this (pointing to the suboptimal apple)?

 Who eats them? For children who say some of  Do they all get eaten? them do not get eaten, ask:  What happens to the carrots that do not get eaten?

GROCERY SHOPPING WITH Who here helps out with the grocery shopping? Tell me PARENTS how you help.

Probe: Sometimes kids help out with the grocery shopping. They might go to the shop, pick food off the shelf, push the trolley etc. Do you help out with the grocery shopping and if so, what do you do?

141

When you or your parents are selecting veges or fruit in the shop, do you take time to select them or just grab them quickly?

Probe: if you take time to select them, what are you looking for?

FOOD PREPARATION Who helps out with cooking at home? Tell me what you do?

Probe: Sometimes kids help out with cooking. This could be making sandwiches, packing lunch boxes, baking, helping to cook meals. Can you tell me a little bit about whether you help with the cooking and if so, what you do? How often do you do help?

When a banana becomes very brown, something like this:

Show this picture

What do you do with such a banana?

GROWING YOUR OWN FOOD Have you helped out with growing fruit or vegetables?

142

What differences have you noticed with fruit and vegetables grown at home?

What do you do with fruit or veges at home that look a bit different?

Probe: what about the shape and colour?

OPINIONS Almost half of the carrots that are grown on fields today are never eaten because they do not look perfect. For example, carrots that have spits in them are thrown away into landfill rather than being sent to the grocery store. What do you think should be done with these carrots?

Countdown sells the “odd bunch” the package says: “foods that should be tasted and not wasted” “food just as beautiful on the inside”. Do you think this carrot is just as beautiful from the inside? Do you think these foods should be tasted and not wasted?

AWARENESS ABOUT FOOD Have you learnt about food waste in school? What have WASTE you learnt?

Have you had discussions at home about wasting food? What sorts of things do your parents say?

Some people think we shouldn’t waste food. Can you think of any reasons why it might be bad to waste food?

Have you got any thoughts on how supermarkets could reduce food waste?

143

15. Compliance with The Privacy Act 1993 and the Health Information Privacy Code 1994 imposes strict requirements concerning the collection, use and disclosure of personal information. The questions below allow the Committee to assess compliance.

15(a) Are you collecting and storing personal information (e.g.name, contact details, designation, position etc.) directly from the individual concerned that could identify the individual?

YES

The focus group interview session will be audio and video recorded and it may contain a disclosure of names. However, the names will not be used for analysing and reporting the data obtained from the interviews. The only information that will be noted will be the age, gender, and ethnicity of the children. Children will be grouped into the age groups of 5-6, 7-8, 9-10 and 11-12.

15(b) Are you collecting information about individuals from another source?

If YES, explain: N/A

15(c) Collecting Personal Information

• Will you be collecting personal information (e.g. name, contact details, position, company, anything that could identify the individual)?

YES

As mentioned in 15(a), the focus group interviews will be video/audio recorded. As a result, the interview tape may contain the names of the respondents. However, no name will be used in the data analysis and reporting of the results in any future publications.

• Will you inform participants of the purpose for which you are collecting the information and the uses you propose to make of it?

YES

144

The participants (children) and their parents/guardians will be informed about the disclosure of names during the focus group interview. They will also be informed that we will not be using names in the data analysis and data reporting in any future publications.

15(d) Outline your data storage, security procedures and length of time data will be kept (Mark Borrie, ITS Security Manager, can provide data security and storage options in particular while in the field):

In compliance with the University requirements, original data of published material will be archived in a locked drawer of project supervisor, Kirsten Robertson’s office for five years after publication, so that it may be available for possible future scrutiny. After five years the material will be destroyed.

15(e) Who will have access to personal information, under what conditions, and subject to what safeguards? If you are obtaining information from another source, include details of how this will be accessed and include written permission if appropriate. Will participants have access to the information they have provided?

The researcher will conduct the research with each age group separately. The teachers will confirm that all participants are within the relevant age group (5-6, 7-8, 9-10 and 11-12). The information sheet for parents/guardians

15(f) Do you intend to publish any personal information they have provided?

No, the results will be published stating which age group, gender, and ethnicity the child belongs to, but no other personal information, such as names, will be published.

15(g) Do you propose to collect demographic information to describe your sample? For example: gender, age, ethnicity, education level, etc.

As mentioned in 15 (a) and (c) the only demographic information that will be noted are age, gender, and ethnicity.

16. Does the research or teaching project involve any form of deception?

145

If yes, explain all debriefing procedures:

N/A

17. Disclose and discuss any potential problems or ethical considerations:

There will be no harm or discomfort to participants, nor medical or legal problems. Parents will be sent a list of fruits and vegetables from which four fruits and four vegetables will be chosen for the study. Children who are allergic to any fruit or vegetable from the list will not be given the fruit or vegetable that they are allergic to. This is done to ensure the safety of the participants and that no child feels excluded from participating in the study; although, the children will not be given any food to eat during the study. The purpose of this research is to understand socialisations of appearance-based preference for fresh fruits and vegetables, thereby assisting initiatives aimed towards the inclusion of optically suboptimal fresh produce for reducing food waste.

This study is limited to a convenience sampling method. Due to the exploratory nature of the study it will not necessarily make the results generalizable to all children aged 5-12 years old. A reasonable sample has been planned to increase the possibility of including a range of themes and issues. It is hoped that the results from this exploratory research will provide the basis for more generalizable research in the future.

Non-participation could potentially pose a problem. If too few parents return their consent forms or children are unwilling then they will not be able to participate in the research. This could result in a small sample size and further limit the generalizability.

18. *Applicant's Signature: ......

Name (please print): …………………………………………………….

Date: ......

*The signatory should be the staff member detailed at Question 1.

19. Departmental approval: I have read this application and believe it to be valid research and ethically sound. I approve the research design. The Research proposed in this application is compatible with

146 the University of Otago policies and I give my consent for the application to be forwarded to the University of Otago Human Ethics Committee with my recommendation that it be approved.

Signature of **Head of Department: ......

Name of HOD (please print): ……………………………………………………….

Date: ......

**Where the Head of Department is also the Applicant, then an appropriate senior staff member must sign on behalf of the Department or School.

147

Appendix A (II): Ethics Amendment Form

UNIVERSITY OF OTAGO HUMAN ETHICS COMMITTEE AND

UNIVERSITY OF OTAGO HUMAN ETHICS COMMITTEE (HEALTH)

REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OR AMENDMENT TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED STUDY

If the nature, content, location, procedure (including recruitment of participants) or personnel (including student investigators) of an application approved by the University of Otago Human Ethics Committee or University if Otago Human Ethics Committee (Health) changes, applicants are responsible for informing the Committee of those changes.

Application Reference Name of University of number (e.g. H13/011, Otago staff member 17/121 Dr Kirsten Robertson 13/131, D13/001): responsible for the project:

Title of Project: Understanding consumer socialisations for appearance-based preferences for fresh fruits and vegetables

Please detail the amendment(s) you would like to make to your approved proposal, the reasons for the change(s), and any additional ethical considerations:

Under section 14 i.e. materials and methods, there is a need to modify the elements of the interview questions (given on page 9.

148

1. On page 8 of the original ethics form, we mentioned that we would use pictures of fruits and vegetables to guide the questions. We have subsequently decided to use actual fruit and vegetables.

2. We have decided to include ethnicity to describe our sample of participants. Ethnicity details have been mentioned in the consent form and information sheet for parents and in Question 15 of the ethics form

3. We have also modified the interview questions slightly. The questions are now as follows:

Instruction for the interviewer Question

APPLE: Before we start, I just want to know do you eat apples?

Let us imagine you can have one of these apples to eat Here I have two apples, one is (show suboptimal B and optimal A apple), which apple marked B and the other is marked would you pick? Why this apple? A. You can have a look at the two apples as I pass it around. Would you eat the other apple? Why/Why not?

For children who state that they So, you have mentioned that you wouldn’t eat the apple. would not eat the apple: Do you think this apple is OK for other people to eat? Why / Why not?

Do you sometimes have apples at home that look like this (pointing to the suboptimal apple)?

 Who eats them?  Do they all get eaten?

149

For children who say that some of  What happens to the apples that do not get eaten? them do not get eaten, ask:

CARROT: Before we get on to the next few questions, I just want to know do you eat carrots?

Here I have two carrots, one is Let us imagine you can have one of these carrots to eat marked B and the other is marked (show suboptimal B and optimal A carrot), which carrot A. You can have a look at the two would you pick? Why this carrot? carrots as I pass it around. Would you eat the other carrot? Why/Why not?

If a child says they personally would not eat the suboptimal Imagine this was the only carrot left at home (show the carrot, ask them this question: suboptimal carrot). You ask for a snack and you are told that you can either eat this carrot or have nothing. Would you then eat this carrot?

For children who state that they So you have mentioned that you wouldn’t eat this wouldn’t eat the carrot: carrot. Do you think it is ok for others to eat this carrot? Why/Why not?

Do you sometimes have carrots at home that look like this (pointing to the suboptimal apple)?

 Who eats them?  Do they all get eaten?

For children who say some of  What happens to the carrots that do not get eaten? them do not get eaten, ask:

150

GROCERY SHOPPING WITH Sometimes kids help out with the grocery shopping. PARENTS They might go to the shop, pick food off the shelf, push the trolley etc. Do you help out with the grocery shopping and if so, what do you do?

People select fruit and vegetables in different ways. Some people take fruit and vegetables from the top of the pile. Others spend time looking through a pile of fruit or vegetables to select the best looking fruit or vegetables. What usually happens when you go shopping?

FOOD PREPARATION Sometimes kids help out with cooking. This could be making sandwiches, packing lunch boxes, baking, helping to cook meals. Can you tell me a little bit about whether you help with the cooking and if so, what you do? How often do you do help?

When a banana becomes very brown, something like this:

Show this picture

What do you do with such a banana?

GROWING YOUR OWN FOOD

151

Have you helped out with growing fruit or vegetables; this could be at home, school, kindergarten, your grandparents? Tell me a little about what you grew; how you helped, and did you have fun growing them?

Probe: what about the shape and Sometimes fruit and vegetables grown at home can look colour? a bit different than the fruit and vegetables in the grocery store. What differences have you noticed with fruit and vegetables grown at home?

When fruit and vegetables do not look perfect, some people eat them and other people don’t. What happens with fruit and vegetables that don’t look perfect at your house?

AWARENESS ABOUT FOOD Have you learnt about food waste in school? What have WASTE you learnt?

Have you had discussions at home about wasting food?

152

What sorts of things do your parents say?

Some people think we shouldn’t waste food. Can you think of any reasons why it might be bad to waste food?

Please email your completed form, together with your amended Information Sheet(s), Consent Form(s), Survey(s)/Questionnaires, or any other relevant documents, as appropriate, to:

Gary Witte (Manager, Academic Committees) [email protected], or Jane Hinkley (Academic Committees Administrator), [email protected] or Jo Farron de Diaz (Research Ethics Administrator), [email protected] .

Researchers can normally expect a response within a week of submitting their request.

153

Appendix B: Information Sheet for Parents

Reference Number: 17/121 29/08/17

Children’s food preferences towards fruits and vegetables.

INFORMATION SHEET FOR PARENTS / GUARDIANS.

Thank you for showing an interest in this project. Please read this information sheet carefully before deciding whether or not to participate. If you decide to participate we thank you. If you decide not to take part there will be no disadvantage to you and we thank you for considering our request.

What is the Aim of the Project?

We are interested in children’s thoughts on the appearance of fruits and vegetables which deviate in appearance from what we typically see at the supermarket. The research will help explain how the appearance of food influences children’s preferences. If you give your permission, your child will be asked to take part in a mock shopping activity, and a group discussion with his/her classmates about the appearance of food. This research is a requirement for the thesis component of a PhD.

What Type of Participants are being sought?

154

We are looking for children from 5 to 12 years of age. The entire data collection will be videotaped for future reference. However, for the privacy of your child any information that personally identifies your child (e.g. name) will be deleted from the transcripts. The only other personal information we will be using are gender, age and ethnicity. The video recordings will only be viewed by the four researchers involved in the study.

What will the Participants be Asked to Do?

Should you agree to take part in this project, your child will be required to participate in two tasks. The first task involves a mock shopping activity where all children in your child’s class who have parental consent to take part will be given a shopping list asking them to select two fruits and two vegetables from a mock stall. The fruit and vegetables will vary in appearance. For this task, we will be choosing four fruits and four vegetables from the following list:

 Apples  Pears  Oranges  Mandarins  Bananas  Lemons  Bell peppers  Onions  Potatoes  Kumaras  Tomatoes  Carrots

If you agree to allow your child to participate in the study, we need to know if your child is allergic to any of the above mentioned fruits and vegetables. If your child is allergic to any of the above, we will ensure that the shopping list does not contain the fruit or vegetables that your child is allergic to. You may mention the fruits and vegetables your child is allergic to from the list above under points 2 and 3 in the consent form.

155

The second activity involves a focus group discussion on the appearance of fruit and vegetables with your child and nine of his/her classmates. Here the children will be asked to briefly discuss their choice of fruit/vegetable. Both tasks will be completed during one class period at school. We wish to video and audio tape the session so that we can refer to it later; however, any information that personally identifies your child will not be used. Moreover, the children will not be given food to eat during the session; however, at the end of the study the children will be allowed to keep the fruit and vegetables they choose in the mock shopping task.

Please be aware that you may decide not to allow your child take part in the project without any disadvantage to your child of any kind.

What Data or Information will be Collected and What Use will be Made of it?

The project involves a mock shopping activity followed by a group interview with your child and nine more of his/her classmates.

The data collected will be securely stored in such a way that only those mentioned below will be able to gain access to it. Data obtained as a result of the research will be retained for at least 5 years in secure storage. Any personal information held on the participants [such as contact details, audio or video tapes, after they have been transcribed etc.,] will be destroyed at the completion of the research even though the data derived from the research will, in most cases, be kept for much longer or possibly indefinitely.

What if Participants have any Questions?

If you have any questions about our project, either now or in the future, please feel free to contact either:-

Annesha Bernadette Makhal and Dr Kirsten Robertson

156

Department of Marketing Department of Marketing

University Telephone Number:- 479 8435 University Telephone Number:- 479 8451 [email protected] [email protected]

This study has been approved by the University of Otago Human Ethics Committee. If you have any concerns about the ethical conduct of the research you may contact the Committee through the Human Ethics Committee Administrator (ph +643 479 8256 or email [email protected]). Any issues you raise will be treated in confidence and investigated and you will be informed of the outcome.

157

Appendix C: Consent Form for Parents

Reference Number 17/121 29/08/17

Children’s food preferences towards fruits and vegetables.

CONSENT FORM FOR

PARENTS/GUARDIANS

I have read the Information Sheet concerning this project and understand what it is about. All my questions have been answered to my satisfaction. I understand that I am free to request further information at any stage.

I know that:-

1. My child’s participation in the project is entirely voluntary. I give permission for my child to be given fruit and vegetables to keep;

2. My child’s ethnicity is (please check the relevant boxes below)

 European  Māori

 Pacific peoples

158

 Asian  MELAA (Middle Eastern / Latin American / African)

 Other ethnicity (please specify) ______

3. My child is allergic to the following fruits (refer to the list in the information sheet)

______

4. My child is allergic to the following vegetables (refer to the list in the information sheet)

______

5. I am free to withdraw my child from the project at any time without any disadvantage;

6. Personal identifying information (video/audio recordings) will be destroyed at the conclusion of the project but any raw data on which the results of the project depend will be retained in secure storage for at least five years;

7. This project involves an open-questioning technique. The general line of questioning includes identification of appearance-based differences and opinions about the edibility of fruits and vegetables. The precise nature of the questions which will be asked have not been determined in advance, but will depend on the way in which the interview develops and that in the event that the line of questioning develops in such a way that my child feels hesitant or uncomfortable he/she may decline to answer any particular question(s) and/or may withdraw from the project without any disadvantage of any kind.

159

8. If I agree to allow my child’s participation, there will be no harm or discomfort of any kind caused to the participants

9. The results of the project may be published and will be available in the University of Otago Library (Dunedin, New Zealand) but every attempt will be made to preserve my child’s anonymity.

I agree for my child to take part in this project.

...... (Signature of parent/guardian) (Date)

...... (Name of child)

…………………………………………………….. Name of person taking consent

160

Appendix D: Information Sheet for Children

Reference Number: 17/121 29/08/17

Children’s food preferences towards fruits and vegetables.

INFORMATION SHEET FOR CHILD PARTICIPANTS

You are invited to participate in a research project on the appearance of fruit and

vegetables organised by Annesha and her team.

1. We are interested in your thoughts on the appearance of fruits and vegetables.

2. We are looking for children who are between the ages 5 and 12 years.

3. If you and your parents agree to participate in this project, you will be required

to participate in two activities:

A. A food shopping activity

B. A group discussion with your classmates

At the end of the session, you will be allowed to keep the fruit and vegetables

you choose in the food shopping task.

161

4. You should also know that if you do not want to take part, it is fine.

5. If you participate in the project, you will be recorded so that Annesha and her

team can remember what you say, but the recording will be erased after the study

has ended. Your name will not be on anything that Annesha writes up about this

study.

6. If you have any questions or worries about the project, you can talk about these

with Annesha or Kirsten

Annesha Bernadette Makhal and Dr Kirsten Robertson

Department of Marketing Department of Marketing

University Telephone Number: 479 8435 University Telephone Number: 479 8451 [email protected] [email protected]

162

Appendix E: Consent Form for Children

Reference Number 17/121 29/08/17

Children’s food preferences towards fruits and vegetables.

CONSENT FORM FOR CHILD PARTICIPANTS

I have been told about this study and understand what it is about. All my questions have been answered in a way that makes sense.

I know that:

1. Participation in this study is voluntary, which means that I do not have to take part

if I don’t want to and nothing will happen to me. I can also stop taking part at any

time and don’t have to give a reason.

2. Anytime I want to stop, that’s okay.

3. Annesha will video and audio record me so that she can remember what I say, but

the recording will be erased after the study has ended.

4. If I don’t want to answer some of the questions, that’s fine.

5. If I have any worries or if I have any other questions, then I can talk about these

with Annesha.

163

6. The paper and computer file with my answers will only be seen by Annesha and the

people she is working with. They will keep whatever I say private.

7. I will receive a fruit and a vegetable for helping with this study.

8. Annesha, Kirsten, Maree and Miranda will write up the results from this study for

their University work. The results may also be written up in journals and talked about

at conferences. My name will not be on anything Annesha writes up about this study.

I agree to take part in the study.

......

Signed Date

164

Appendix F: Media Releases

1. News and Events released by the University of Otago Media Releases “New market for bent, ugly and wonky produce” [12 November, 2019; Online/Social Media]. Website link : https://www.otago.ac.nz/news/news/otago723664.html 2. Newshub. [Online] released “Study suggests new market for bent, ugly and wonky produce” [ 12 November, 2019] Website link: https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/rural/2019/11/study-suggests-new-market-for-bent- ugly-and-wonky-produce.html 3. Otago Daily Times [Print/Online] newspaper article titled, “Children may shape things to come” [13 Nov 2019] [Website link: https://www.odt.co.nz/news/dunedin/children-may-shape-things-come 4. Radio Interviews on Newstalk ZB – iHeartRADIO [Radio/Online]: Radio interview on the ‘Mike Hosking Breakfast’ show and ‘Early Edition with Kate Hawkesby’ show. [13 November, 2019] Title of radio release, “Children seen as solution in fight against food waste” Online audio release: https://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/on-air/mike- hosking-breakfast/audio/annesha-makhal-children-seen-as-solution-in-fight-against- food-waste/ 5. Television Interview broadcasted on Three Now’s TV news channel ‘Newshub. Live at 6pm’ show. [13 November, 2019]

165

Understanding The Socialisation Of Appearance-based Preferences For Fresh Fruit And Vegetables Annesha Bernadette Makhal, Kirsten Robertson, Miranda Mirosa & Maree Thyne Abstract

Purpose of the Research A significant opportunity to reduce avoidable food waste is to reduce the waste of suboptimal fresh fruit and vegetables. Whilst the suboptimal food waste literature is replete with understanding adult attitudes towards suboptimal foods and strategies to counter the non- acceptance and waste of these foods, little is known about how consumers have been socialised to form these appearance-based preferences. The purpose of this study is to attempt to understand children’s attitudes and perceptions towards suboptimal fruit and vegetables, as this sets the stage to understand how these attitudes and perceptions have been socialised. This extended abstract summarises the preliminary findings of the attitudes towards and associated perceptions of suboptimal fruit and vegetables from the perceived quality cues and attributes perspective. Background Over the last ten years, food waste research has gained momentum amongst the academic community (Chen, Jiang, Yang, Yang, & Man, 2017). Suboptimal food waste in particular has drawn research interests, particularly in Europe (Rohm et al., 2017). The Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations estimates that a third of the food grown on the planet is wasted (Gustavsson, Cederberg, Sonesson, van Otterdijk, & Meybeck, 2011). Of this waste, fruit and vegetables (F&Vs) are the most wasted foods at 45 percent (FAO, 2017). A significant part of this waste is contributed to through marketing standards that specify the cosmetic requirements that fresh produce needs to comply by to be sold in the marketplace. Aschemann- Witzel, de Hooge, Amani, Bech-Larsen, and Oostindjer (2015) have named these F&Vs rejects as suboptimal foods. Owing to the scale of F&V waste throughout the food supply chain (Mena, Adenso-Diaz, & Yurt, 2011), especially because they fail to meet an appearance standard, the focus of this research is suboptimal F&Vs. Suboptimal food waste is avoidable and hence re- evaluating the value of suboptimal foods could provide significant opportunities to reduce the environmental and social footprint the waste of these foods bring (Aschemann-Witzel, Giménez, & Ares, 2018). Most research on suboptimal foods have studied adult attitudes towards and strategies to improve acceptance of suboptimal foods. Research on attitudes towards suboptimal fruit and vegetables suggest that the general attitude towards suboptimal F&Vs is negative (Bunn, Feenstra, Lynch, & Somer, 1990; Yue et al., 2007). While these studies show that suboptimal F&Vs are perceived to be largely inedible and unmarketable, recent research shows that consumer attitudes and perceptions of edibility varies across a number of factors. For example, consumers are more accepting of shape defects rather than blemishes in F&Vs (de Hooge et al., 2017). Similarly, suboptimal food acceptance also depends upon the situations where consumers make the decision to either accept or reject suboptimal foods. That is, they are more likely to consume suboptimal foods at home rather than buy suboptimal foods from the supermarkets (de Hooge et al., 2017), and once suboptimal foods are purchased, they are less likely to be wasted at home

(Aschemann-Witzel, Jensen, Jensen, & Kulikovskaja, 2017). With regards to consumers’ willingness to buy suboptimals, price discounts are one of the most important factors to influence acceptance of suboptimal F&Vs (de Hooge et al., 2017; Helmert, Symmank, Pannasch, & Rohm, 2017). Additionally, several other factors also influence acceptance of suboptimal foods, such as socio-demographic factors like age, nationality, and gender (Aschemann-Witzel, 2018; de Hooge et al., 2017; Loebnitz & Grunert, 2015; Loebnitz, Schuitema, & Grunert, 2015), psychographic factors (de Hooge et al., 2017; Loebnitz et al., 2015), in-store factors related to the marketing of suboptimal foods (Aschemann-Witzel, 2018; Helmert et al., 2017), and at-home factors relating to the potential use of suboptimal foods (Aschemann-Witzel, 2018; Aschemann-Witzel et al., 2017). Recently in New Zealand, suboptimal F&V’s have gained more attention with retailers attempting to sell them in store (Love Food Hate Waste New Zealand, 2017). While studying adult’s perspectives towards suboptimal F&Vs is useful, there is a dearth of research that focusses on how these attitudes are formed. To understand how and why these attitudes have formed, the perspective of children become particularly useful. In fact, most food socialisations begin at an early age and remain mostly stable through to early adulthood (Fallon, Rozin, & Pliner, 1984). The aim of this short abstract is to present the argument for studying the attitudes and perceptions of children towards suboptimal F&Vs to understand the development of these attitudes. This echoes with the strategy of changing beliefs about suboptimality that seeks to improve consumer value perception towards suboptimal foods (Aschemann-Witzel et al., 2018). Methodology Focus group interviews were conducted in New Zealand with children from age five to eleven (N = 97), which was preceded by an observation study that involved a play shopping activity. The study had ethical approval from the University of Otago and the participating school, and both the parents and participants had given their written and informed consent. The entire data collection was completed over two days and within the premises of the school. The first part of the study focussed on understanding children’s attitudes and perceptions towards suboptimal F&Vs in comparison to optimal F&Vs.

Preliminary Findings The shopping activity revealed that the general trend was that the optimal varieties were preferred over the suboptimal varieties of the F&Vs used. There were also no gender and age differences between those who chose the optimal versus those who chose the suboptimal varieties. The first set of questions asked during the group discussions attempted to understand the underlying perceptions adjunct the expressed attitudes towards the optimal and suboptimal F&Vs. The preliminary results show that the perception of quality cues related to the shape, colour, texture, blemishes and overall appearance are used to derive inferences about the quality attributes of taste, freshness, ripeness and nutritional value. All of these together, are used to judge the outcome credence attribute of edibility.

Discussion A common phenomenon observed with the expressed attitudes towards suboptimal and optimal F&V’s is an interaction of the associated perceptions to the extent it represents conflicting attitudes. Such attitudinal imbalances have also been reported in past research wherein concerns health and safety are opposing the need to use leftovers at home (Watson & Meah, 2013) and the

need to live up to the image of being a good provider clashes with the need to practice thrift at home (Porpino, Wansink, & Parente, 2016). According to Asp (1999), liking and disliking certain foods is not only determined by psychological factors (e.g., de Hooge et al., 2017) but also by cultural factors which establish the food habits and practices. From a sociological perspective, food preferences are a result of socially-determined practices (Evans, 2011, 2012), such that inter-generational differences with food handling and valuation can be observed (Evans, Campbell, & Murcott, 2013; Osborn, 2016). Food suppliers of the food supply chain greatly influence the type of produce consumers are exposed to, and hence socialise their food preferences by creating expectations of what fresh produce should look like (Devin & Richards, 2016; Osborn, 2016). With regards to children, different levels of sociological factors such as food involvement with family members and food experiences could explain the development of the appearance-based preferences expressed through attitudes. Future research should explore these socialisations that construct the formation of appearance-based preferences. References

Aschemann-Witzel, J. (2018). Consumer perception and preference for suboptimal food under the emerging practice of expiration date based pricing in supermarkets. Food Quality and Preference, 63, 119-128. doi:10.1016/j.foodqual.2017.08.007 Aschemann-Witzel, J., de Hooge, I., Amani, P., Bech-Larsen, T., & Oostindjer, M. (2015). Consumer-related food waste: Causes and potential for action. Sustainability, 7(6), 6457-6477. doi:10.3390/su7066457 Aschemann-Witzel, J., Giménez, A., & Ares, G. (2018). Consumer in-store choice of suboptimal food to avoid food waste: The role of food category, communication and perception of quality dimensions. Food Quality and Preference, 68, 29-39. doi:10.1016/j.foodqual.2018.01.020 Aschemann-Witzel, J., Jensen, J. H., Jensen, M. H., & Kulikovskaja, V. (2017). Consumer behaviour towards price-reduced suboptimal foods in the supermarket and the relation to food waste in households. Appetite, 116, 246-258. doi:10.1016/j.appet.2017.05.013 Asp, E. H. (1999). Factors affecting food decisions made by individual consumers. Food Policy, 24(2-3), 287--294. doi:10.1016/s0306-9192(99)00024-x Bunn, D., Feenstra, G. W., Lynch, L., & Somer, R. (1990). Consumer Acceptance of Cosmetically Imperfect Produce. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 24(2), 268-279. doi:10.1111/j.1745-6606.1990.tb00269.x Chen, H., Jiang, W., Yang, Y., Yang, Y., & Man, X. (2017). State of the art on food waste research: a bibliometrics study from 1997 to 2014. Journal of Cleaner Production, 140, 840-846. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.11.085 de Hooge, I. E., Oostindjer, M., Aschemann-Witzel, J., Normann, A., Loose, S. M., & Almli, V. L. (2017). This apple is too ugly for me! Food Quality and Preference, 56, 80-92. doi:10.1016/j.foodqual.2016.09.012 Devin, B., & Richards, C. (2016). Food Waste, Power, and Corporate Social Responsibility in the Australian Food Supply Chain. Journal of Business Ethics. doi:10.1007/s10551-016-3181-z Evans, D. (2011). Blaming the consumer – once again: The social and material contexts of everyday food waste practices in some English households. Critical Public Health, 21(4), 429-440. doi:10.1080/09581596.2011.608797

Evans, D. (2012). Binning, gifting and recovery: The conduits of disposal in household food consumption. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 30(6), 1123- 1137. doi:10.1068/d22210 Evans, D., Campbell, H., & Murcott, A. (2013). A brief pre-history of food waste and the social sciences. The Sociological Review, 60(S2), 5-26. doi:10.1111/1467- 954x.12035 Fallon, A. E., Rozin, P., & Pliner, P. (1984). The child's conception of food: The development of food Rrejections with special reference to disgust and contamination sensitivity. Child Development, 55(2), 566-575. doi:10.2307/1129968 FAO. (2017). Save food: Global initiative on food loss and waste reduction. Retrieved from http://www.fao.org/save-food/resources/keyfindings/infographics/fruit/en/. Gustavsson, J., Cederberg, C., Sonesson, U., van Otterdijk, R., & Meybeck, A. (2011). Global food losses and food waste - Extent, Causes and prevention. Retrieved from Rome: http://www.fao.org/docrep/014/mb060e/mb060e.pdf. Helmert, J. R., Symmank, C., Pannasch, S., & Rohm, H. (2017). Have an eye on the buckled cucumber: An eye tracking study on visually suboptimal foods. Food Quality and Preference, 60, 40-47. doi:10.1016/j.foodqual.2017.03.009 Loebnitz, N., & Grunert, K. G. (2015). The effect of food shape abnormality on purchase intentions in China. Food Quality and Preference, 40, 24-30. doi:10.1016/j.foodqual.2014.08.005 Loebnitz, N., Schuitema, G., & Grunert, K. G. (2015). Who buys oddly shaped food and why? Impacts of food shape abnormality and organic labeling on purchase intentions. Psychology & Marketing, 32(4), 408-421. doi:10.1002/mar.20788 Love Food Hate Waste New Zealand. (2017). Introducing The Odd Bunch: Why you should love imperfect fruit and vegetables. Retrieved from https://lovefoodhatewaste.co.nz/introducing-the-odd-bunch/. Mena, C., Adenso-Diaz, B., & Yurt, O. (2011). The causes of food waste in the supplier– retailer interface: Evidences from the UK and Spain. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 55(6), 648-658. doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2010.09.006 Osborn, S. (2016). Wastage of food. Encyclopedia of Food and Health, 447-452. doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-384947-2.00733-9 Porpino, G., Wansink, B., & Parente, J. (2016). Wasted Positive Intentions: The Role of Affection and Abundance on Household Food Waste. Journal of Food Products Marketing, 22(7), 733-751. doi:10.1080/10454446.2015.1121433 Rohm, H., Oostindjer, M., Aschemann-Witzel, J., Symmank, C., V, L. A., de Hooge, I. E., . . . Karantininis, K. (2017). Consumers in a Sustainable Food Supply Chain (COSUS): Understanding Consumer Behavior to Encourage Food Waste Reduction. Foods, 6(12). doi:10.3390/foods6120104 Watson, M., & Meah, A. (2013). Food, waste and safety: Negotiating conflicting social anxieties into the practices of domestic provisioning. The Sociological Review, 60(S2), 102-120. doi:10.1111/1467-954x.12040 Yue, C., Jensen, H. H., Mueller, D. S., Nonnecke, G. R., Bonnet, D., & Gleason, M. L. (2007). Estimating Consumers’ Valuation of Organic and Cosmetically Damaged Apples. HortScience, 42(6), 1366–1371.

Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 54 (2020) 101945

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jretconser

“I don't like wonky carrots”- an exploration of children's perceptions of suboptimal fruits and vegetables T

∗ Annesha Makhala, Maree Thynea, , Kirsten Robertsona, Miranda Mirosab a Department of Marketing, Otago Business School, P O Box 56, Dunedin, 9054, New Zealand b Department of Food Science University of Otago, P.O. Box 56, Dunedin, 9054, New Zealand

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: Children's perceptions of suboptimal fruits and vegetables have not been studied in the suboptimal foods do- Suboptimal produce main. Using two qualitative research methods, this study investigates children's (N = 97) edibility perceptions of Food appearance suboptimal produce with varied appearance defects. The results show that unlike adult samples previously Children studied, children are more accepting of suboptimal produce. Defects in shape, size, and certain colour defects Qualitative research were positively perceived, reflecting retailers' opportunities to market suboptimal produce. High levels of brown Food acceptance discolorations and superficial blemishes were not acceptable, implying that produce with such defects could be repurposed as ingredients in foods prepared and sold in-store. These implications reflect retailers' opportunities in marketing suboptimal produce to children, who by their familial influence may also be able to get families to buy and consume suboptimal produce. The importance of familiarity in improving suboptimal food acceptance is also recognised for future research to explore.

1. Introduction (FAO, 2017). Resultantly, researchers have examined how best to increase consumer purchase and consumption of suboptimal foods by Modern food consumption is arguably unsustainable because food drawing strategies from consumer research, such as drawing attention production is resource intensive (Foley et al., 2005), and 30–50% of all towards suboptimal products (Helmert et al., 2017), familiarising cus- food grown is wasted (Gustavsson et al., 2011, Institution of Mechanical tomers with suboptimal foods in-store (Aschemann-Witzel, 2018a) and Engineers, 2013). A major cause of food waste is food rejection due to at home (Symmank et al., 2018), and nudging consumers through price outdated labels, defective packaging and consumers’ misperceptions of discounts and communication/posotioning strategies (Aschemann- food edibility because of non-standard appearance. Aschemann-Witzel Witzel, 2018b; Louis and Lombart, 2018; Rohm et al., 2017, Van Giesen et al. (2015) named foods which consumers reject or discard as sub- and De Hooge, 2019). optimal foods and deﬁne suboptimal produce as fresh fruits and vege- In response to increasing public concern regarding food waste, re- tables that “consumers perceive as relatively undesirable as compared tailers have initiated selling suboptimal produce in-store (Aschemann- to otherwise similar [produce] because they … deviate (visually or in Witzel et al., 2016b, 2018; Louis and Lombart, 2018). Retailer cam- other sensory perception) from what is regarded as optimal (usually paigns marketing suboptimal produce often emotionalise them as the equal to what is perceived as “normal”)” (Aschemann-Witzel et al., ‘loveable underdogs’ that are too good to be wasted (Aschemann-Witzel 2015, pp. 6458–6459). Appearance cues assist in forming expectations et al., 2017, 2018), thereby evoking sympathy and liking for suboptimal about the edibility of food (Steenkamp, 1990) and are particularly produce (Ketron and Naletelich, 2019). The campaigns include ani- pertinent in determining choice and quality inferences regarding fresh mated visuals, imagery, and catchy slogans aimed at educating con- produce (Olson, 1978) because fresh produce is typically sold loose or sumers about food waste, whilst encouraging more end-users of sub- in clear packaging (Deng and Srinivasan, 2013), and often lacks date optimal produce (Aschemann-Witzel, 2018a; Aschemann-Witzel et al., labels. Hence, physical appearance becomes an important determinant 2016b; Louis and Lombart, 2018). Given that children are strong in- of fruit and vegetable choice (Cardello, 1994). ﬂuencers in socialising their families to adopt sustainable lifestyles Consumer perception of suboptimal fruits and vegetables as inedible (Grønhøj, 2016; Watne and Brennan, 2011), the marketing of sub- or undesirable is estimated to generate an avoidable waste of 45% optimal fruits and vegetables as “fun foods” raises the question of

∗ Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (A. Makhal), [email protected] (M. Thyne), [email protected] (K. Robertson), [email protected] (M. Mirosa). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2019.101945 Received 16 December 2018; Received in revised form 24 July 2019; Accepted 5 September 2019 Available online 17 September 2019 0969-6989/ © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. A. Makhal, et al. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 54 (2020) 101945 whether suboptimal fruits and vegetables could appeal to children, and retailers in particular play a significant role in influencing consumer whether this could influence families to buy, and consume, suboptimal decisions through marketing mix elements (Halloran et al., 2014). Thus produce. Research has shown how adults perceive appearance cues of retailiers have the opportunity to influence consumer decisions to buy suboptimal foods, however, this paper is the first to explore how chil- and consume foods that may otherwise be wasted. dren use appearance cues to judge the edibility of suboptimal produce; thus providing practical insight into how retailers could market sub- 1.2. Suboptimal foods in supermarkets optimal produce to children. This, in turn, could influence families to purchase and consume suboptimal produce, potentially reducing food With increasing societal interest in saving suboptimal produce, re- waste. tailers have come under scrutiny for imposing cosmetic standards. Supermarkets around the world have implemented initiatives to sell 1.1. Consumer perceptions of appearance cues in suboptimal fruits and suboptimal fruits and vegetables, in an effort to curb their waste and vegetables familiarise consumers with produce that deviate from the norm (Aschemann-Witzel, 2018a; Aschemann-Witzel et al., 2017; Clayton Although appearance standards do not officially exist for fresh fruits and Carnegie, 2017; Louis and Lombart, 2018; Mortimer, 2015). Ex- and vegetables (since 2009), cosmetic standards continue to be widely amples include the French retailer Intermarché’s Inglorious fruits and practiced by retailers (Gustavsson et al., 2011). Atypical appearances in vegetables and American retailer Whole Foods' Misfit fruits and vege- suboptimal fruits and vegetables include shape, size, and colour defects, tables. These initiatives involve selling non-standardised produce that and the presence of blemishes or a general non-standard unfamiliar would otherwise be wasted at discounted prices with eye-catching appearance (Gustavsson et al., 2011; Stuart, 2009). As food appearance imagery and slogans. Interestingly, these initiatives were well received is pivotal in the acceptance of fresh fruits and vegetables, deviations in by the public and also started a buzz around food waste, furthering appearance may imply poor quality (Cardello, 1994). consumer awareness and commitment to stamp out food waste (Louis Research demonstrates that adults find blemishes or bruises in fresh and Lombart, 2018). Creative campaigns, such as Intermarché’s in- produce unacceptable (Bunn et al., 1990; Jaeger et al., 2016; De Hooge itiative naming suboptimal produce such as the “grotesque apple” or et al., 2017; Yue et al., 2007, 2009) because they make the produce less the “ridiculous potato”, have led to increased footfalls and stocks selling tasty and safe (De Hooge et al., 2017). Low value for money or the out (Intermarché, 2014). Likewise, in Australia and New Zealand, inconvenience of eating blemished produce are strong barriers that Woolworths offered the “Odd bunch” to fight food waste and also sup- inhibit consumption of blemished produce (Jaeger et al., 2018). Hence, port local growers (Love Food Hate Waste New Zealand, 2017; Turner, Jaeger et al. (2016) note that while price discounts could be used to sell 2014). Thus we find that retailer involvement has created an oppor- blemished produce, the condition of the produce at the point of con- tunity for changing consumer perceptions of suboptimal foods. sumption is important to prevent waste as blemishes entail the perceived risk of contamination (Aschemann-Witzel, 2018a, De Hooge 1.3. Retailers and children et al., 2017). Likewise, children perceive contamination as undesirable and disgusting (Fallon et al., 1984), hence we hypothesize that like Research has recognised children as the future generation of sus- adults, children too will be unwilling to accept blemished produce. tainable consumers who successfully influence their families to adopt Whilst moderate shape defects are accepted (De Hooge et al., 2017; sustainable lifestyles (Grønhøj, 2016; Stuhmcke, 2012). Children are Loebnitz et al., 2015), extreme shape abnormality is still perceived as highly involved in family grocery trips and play a significant role in unacceptable (Loebnitz and Grunert, 2015; Loebnitz et al., 2015). family food decisions in-store and subsequently family consumer be- Helmert et al. (2017) and Van Giesen and De Hooge (2019) suggest haviour (Bertol et al., 2017; Marshall, 2014). Likewise, supermarkets providing price discounts in combination with product positioning provide the atmospherics for children to actively engage with the strategies to further the acceptance of misshaped produce. Unlike products and promotional strategies available in store (Ayadi and Cao, adults, children might be more accepting of extreme shape abnormal- 2016), thereby serving as an agent of consumer socialisation (John, ities. Research has shown children's fruit and vegetable consumption 1999). Fitting the supermarket services and store layout for families increases when they are cut into “cute”, unusual, but fun shapes with children has become imperative for retailers to retain them as (Branen et al., 2002; Olsen et al., 2012). grocery shoppers (Page et al., 2018). Therefore, the combination of Colour is another appearance cue that affects taste perceptions children's participation in grocery shopping and retailer efforts to sell (Koch and Koch, 2003). Consumers prefer foods with greater chromatic suboptimal foods in-store and inform consumers about the food waste vibrancy, perceiving them to taste fresher (Lee et al., 2013). Consumers problem leaves scope for retailers to actively engage this young market. specifically find any degree of browning unacceptable (Schifferstein In fact, we are increasingly seeing visuals, imagery, slogans, and ani- et al., 2018). While adults show scepticism towards unfamiliar colours mated graphics for suboptimal produce which could appeal to children. in foods (Leksrisompong et al., 2012; Paakki et al., 2016), children have For example, when the “odd bunch” was launched in New Zealand in shown liking for familiar foods with atypical colours (Dovey et al., 2017, children reported that the wonky produce would be “more fun to 2012), or foods that are their favourite colours (De Moura, 2007). Thus, eat” than regular ones (Clayton and Carnegie, 2017). Food waste acti- children may prefer fruits and vegetables with atypical colours. vist, Jordan Figueiredo, reports that children from all around the world Size, as an appearance cue, has received less attention in the sub- are more responsive, actively engaged, find humour in, and sympathise optimal produce context. Research finds consumers typically prefer with, suboptimal produce, which has led to the campaign “Kids Love average or regular-sized produce as opposed to very small or very large- Ugly Fruit” (Figueiredo, n.d.). Further, research suggests that owing to sized produce (Jaeger et al., 2011). Hence why size standards are im- less stable food appearance preferences, children are more likely to posed by many supermarkets (Mena et al., 2011; White et al., 2011). prefer abnormal or atypical, over normal or typical (Poelman and For children, obesity research shows they typically prefer smaller por- Delahunty, 2011). These reports reflect the untapped potential of this tions of fruit and vegetables on the plate (Colapinto et al., 2007) and consumer cohort for retailers trying to encourage the consumption of regular to small–sized whole fruits and vegetables (Olsen et al., 2012), suboptimal produce. and are more likely to eat fruit and vegetables when they are cut into Therefore, contrary to adults who have expressed negative attitudes smaller pieces (Kirby et al., 1995). Therefore, we can assume that towards suboptimal foods and need to be incentivised to accept sub- children are likely to prefer small-to-regular sized produce over very optimal produce (Aschemann-Witzel et al., 2016a, 2017; De Hooge large ones. et al., 2017; Graham-Rowe et al., 2014; Jaeger et al., 2018; Watson and Of all the stakeholders in the food supply chain, supermarket Meah, 2013), children could be more accepting of suboptimal produce.

2 A. Makhal, et al. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 54 (2020) 101945

However, research to date has not studied how this consumer segment Table 1 perceives suboptimal fruits and vegetables, a question addressed by the Socio-demographic characteristics of the participant. fi current study. Speci cally, this paper reports on the appearance cues Sample properties (N = 97) Frequency (n) Percentage (%) children use to determine the acceptability of suboptimal fruits and vegetables, and how such cues are used to make both positive and Gender negative inferences about the edibility of suboptimal produce. The Boys 46 47.4 fi Girls 51 52.6 implications of these ndings shed light on how retailers and food Age marketers can direct suboptimal food waste avoidance initiatives to 5 3 3.1 children, in the hope of indirectly getting families to consume sub- 6 10 10.3 optimal produce and change edibility perceptions. 7 19 19.6 8 22 22.7 9 18 18.6 2. Materials and methods 10 18 18.6 11 7 7.2 2.1. Study design Ethnicity European 70 72.2 Māori 2 2.1 This study involved an observational shopping activity and focus Asian 4 4.1 group discussions. Qualitative methodologies provide authentic and European & Māori 6 6.2 detailed information when obtaining data from children (Darbyshire European & Asian 5 5.2 et al., 2005), and using multiple methods provides complementary in- European, Māori & Pacific Peoples 1 1 ā fi sights to understand a phenomenon from a range of perspectives M ori & Paci c Peoples 2 2.1 MELAA 1 1 (Darbyshire et al., 2005; Lucchini, 1996; Morrow, 2001). The purpose Others 3 3.1 of the shopping activity was to observe how children make choices Not stated 3 3.1 between suboptimal and optimal produce and the arguments they construct to justify their preferences, while also getting them to talk about the appearance of the produce as they made their choices. Ob- oranges, and lemons) and four types of vegetables (carrots, capsicums, 1 servational studies are considered ‘well-suited’ for capturing realistic tomatoes, and potatoes) that varied in appearance (optimal versus and actual behaviours (Rust, 1993) and have previously been used to suboptimal). The produce was selected based on the seasonal varieties observe children's shopping behaviour (Atkin, 1978; Gaumer and available in New Zealand. Non-seasonal produce was not used as it Arnone, 2009). The focus group interviews were used to explore chil- could affect the level of sub-optimality. The produce was procured from dren's’ attitudes towards, and their perceptions of suboptimal produce a local green grocer who determined the (sub)optimality, similar to past in greater depth. Focus group discussions are a popular technique for research (Symmank et al., 2018). To keep track of children's choices collecting data from children; they enable the researcher to explore (optimal vs sub optimal), stickers with even or odd numbers were at- children's experiences, knowledge and perceptions in a manner that tached to the produce to indicate optimality. The children were pro- makes the child participants feel comfortable when sharing their con- vided with a shopping basket and shopping list to carry out the shop- sumption stories (Gibson, 2007, 2012; Heary and Hennessy, 2002, ping activity. Each shopping list contained the name and quantity of the 2006; Kennedy et al., 2001). The study had ethical approval from the fruit and vegetable to be chosen. University of Otago, and both parents and children gave their written Researchers recommend using stimuli when conducting focus and informed consent. groups with children to keep their attention and to help them express their thoughts (Krueger and Casey, 2009; Stewart and Shamdasani, 2.2. Participants 1990). The stimuli used for the group discussion included a suboptimal and optimal carrot and apple. These stimuli were used to initiate the Participants included 97 children aged between 5 and 11 years, discussions using one open question, “which of these would you choose recruited through a large (enrolment approximately 500) co-educa- and why?” Using a real carrot and apple that varied in optimality helped tional, central, state school, and with a socio-demographic distribution anchor children's discussion of their attitudes and perceptions of ed- parallel to the New Zealand population. To reduce selection bias, the ibility based on appearance. teachers distributed information and consent forms to 170 children and 102 were returned (60% acceptance rate), although 5 children were 2.4. Procedure absent from school during data collection. To enable a socio-demographic description of the sample, parents provided age, gender, and The study was piloted prior to data collection to refine the proce- ethnicity information of their child [Table 1]. The dominance of the dure. The pilot revealed that it was important to ask children questions European ethnic group over the other ethnic groups is representative of at the point of their decision making during the shopping task. For the the NZ population, hence we did not find that this affected the nature of focus group discussions, replacing words such as ‘opinions’ with the responses obtained from the study. ‘thoughts’ helped children understand the questions better. The participants were allotted into 1-h sessions according to their 2.3. Stimuli age (Table 2). Based on a random draw of shopping lists, the shopping activity required children to choose two quantities of a fruit and two The shopping activity combined children's shopping scripts quantities of a vegetable from a large assortment of the aforementioned (Drenten et al., 2008) and choice experiments, used in most suboptimal produce displayed on a table. Field notes were taken on the way chil- food waste research (e.g., De Hooge et al., 2017). However, unlike past dren made their choices (e.g. swapping, commenting, and/or careful research where the degree and type of suboptimality was controlled inspection of the produce) and the participants were questioned about using pictures (e.g. De Hooge et al. (2017), Jaeger et al. (2016); their behaviour while they made their choice (e.g., “What type of Loebnitz et al. (2015) etc.), we used real produce where the degree and type of suboptimality was not controlled. This allowed a real-life perspective of children's perceptions through their ‘live’ reactions. The 1 Botanically tomato is a fruit. Legally, however, it is classified as a vegetable stimuli used in the observation shopping activity were adapted from because consumers use them in savoury foods (Nix v. Hedden 149 (U.S. Drenten et al. (2008) and included four types of fruits (apples, pears, Supreme Court 1893)).

3 A. Makhal, et al. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 54 (2020) 101945

Table 2 Age groups used for data collection. ” ”

Age group Total Number of Number of children Duration focus groups in each focus group (minutes)

5–6 year olds 13 2 7, 6 21, 23 7 year olds 19 2 9, 10 25, 24 8 year olds 22 2 11, 11 25, 26 9 year olds 18 2 9, 9 30, 29 ” 10–11 year 25 3 9, 8, 8 36, 35, 35 olds apples are you looking for?”). The shopping activity lasted for ap- I don't like it cause it's got a weird shape I don't like that because it is all brown “ I'm looking for oneso orange much that doesn't dots have on it. proximately 10–15 min for every age group. “ It's a bit too small ” The focus group discussions followed the shopping activity. Each age group was divided to form a manageable number of focus group members comprising 6 to 11 children (Table 2), similar to past research ”“ with children (Bertol et al., 2017). The group discussion rules were explained, alongside additional information about the anonymity, ”“ s scraped. I'd still eat conﬁdentiality, recording of the session, and that there were no right or ’ wrong answers. The focus group discussions were based on a pre-determined question protocol and were conducted by trained facilitators. ” Strategies were employed to include all participants, for instance, asking groups with dominant participants to raise their hands before ” ﬁ answering and speci cally asking quieter children questions directly. it just means that it Example Positive Negative “ I like how it is twisted “ This I'll take cause it is orange-er “… the whole thing The group discussions were prompted by showing an optimal [A] and a “ I went for big onespotatoes because I really like suboptimal [B] carrot or apple and asking the participants to choose one. For example, “I've got two apples. This is Apple A and this is Apple B. Let us imagine that you can have one of them, which one would you pick?” upon providing an answer, the children were probed further to explain their choice. For example, “Why not B?” and “Why do you think that A is riper and fresher?” The discussions lasted approximately 25–35 min (see Table 2). The data collection took place on the school premises, the environment was familiar, which contributed towards children feeling at ease at the time of data collection (Gibson, 2007, 2012; Krueger and Casey, 2009).

2.5. Coding

The qualitative data obtained comprised field notes, video and audio transcripts. This data was transcribed verbatim, and content analysis was used to inductively code responses into an exhaustive list of sub-themes, which were then merged into meaningful themes (Braun and Clarke, 2006; Elo and Kyngäs, 2008). All four authors reviewed the data to ensure consistency across the themes. The themes identified cial marks, scars and bruises on the outer surface of the suboptimal fi were based on the appearance cues children used to perceive the edibility attributes and the acceptability of suboptimal fruits and vegetables. The justifications provided to explain why one type of produce was preferred over another type revealed the edibility attributes inferred from the appearance cues. Preferences for, or against, the suboptimal varieties were used to classify the appearance cues into either positive (acceptable) or negative (not acceptable) perceptions. A similar approach of using choice based preferences for determining either po- cations to justify the reasons for the acceptance or rejection.

sitive or negative attitudes has been used in earlier studies on sub- ﬁ

optimal foods (De Hooge et al., 2017; Yue et al., 2009). In total, four nition fi fi personi to infer edibility perceptions of the suboptimal produce. produce. themes were identi ed as perceptions of the appearance cues (see small, or simply deviate from the average or moderate size. Table 3 theme definitions).

3. Results Colour Colour perceptions include the perceptions of the colour saturation, discolorations and bi-colourations used Blemishes Blemishes include the presence of super Size Size perceptions include the acceptance or rejection of suboptimal produce that are either too large or too

With the aim to provide a holistic account of how children perceive the appearance of suboptimal produce, the results compile the ﬁndings from both studies and present it as themes. The appearance cues are discussed in terms of how they were used in judging the produce - to either accept or reject the suboptimal produce. Thus reﬂecting either Overarching theme Theme De Appearance cues Shape Shape perceptions include the acceptance or rejection of misshaped produce along with shape

positive or negative attitudes based on the presence of the cue, and the Table 3 Table of themes.

4 A. Makhal, et al. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 54 (2020) 101945 edibility perceptions which were inferred from the appearance cues. they both look healthy, but B looks different, it's twisted, but there's no difference in the healthiness”. Likewise, some children agreed during the 3.1. Shape perceptions group discussion that choosing misshaped produce is an irrational thing to do, “It looks pretty disgusting because of the bent (shape defect). I think if Shape was the most frequently mentioned appearance cue for the I could choose a disgusting looking one and a very smart one, I would suboptimal produce. Personal liking or preference for the produce in probably choose a smart one. It's like you have a Christmas present, which general, or specifically liking the shape defect, influenced children's would you choose …” (Boy, 7). suboptimal choice. During the focus group discussions, Nate (8) said, “I like it, I like how it's bent because I like all sorts of carrots”. Annie (6), who 3.2. Colour perceptions chose a suboptimal carrot during the shopping activity, pointed to the misshaped end of the carrot and said, “I like that bit coming out of the The acceptance of suboptimal fruits and vegetables was linked with bottom”. Shape defects imparted a unique appearance which led chil- underlying positive colour perceptions. When shown an apple with dren to prefer suboptimal over optimal. For example, in the 10–11 year green and yellow patches during the group discussions, the seven year old group discussions, one of the girls said, “I like the ugly one (carrot)” olds relied on their past experiences that have shaped their preference and another girl added, “It's different, it's different and it's twisted”. for sour-tasting apples: “They're really good, I like those”, “I'd buy all of Misshaped produce were perceived to resemble inanimate objects them, yum!” and “It's sour, yes sour … It's good I want to eat it”. Previous and even personified to have human-like characteristics. Such percep- taste experiences led children to confirm that colour deviations do not tions sparked interest in the misshaped produce. During the shopping affect taste. For example, Betty (8) said, “I would choose either one cause activity, a child in the 5–6 year old group chose a suboptimal pear as to me every apple tastes the same” and Katie (8) clarified “I would eat both she found the shape to resemble a phone, “It's a phone! A mini phone!” of them cause this one, it just looks different but tastes the same”. Personifying misshaped produce into fun characters also led to positive Colour saturation and vibrancy of the produce was used to de- taste inferences. For example, while shopping for pears, Minnie (6) termine choice. During the group discussions, Teddy (6) compared the personified the shape of a suboptimal pear to look like an alien, “It's an colour of the optimal carrot with that of the suboptimal carrot to justify alien! It's yummy!” During the group discussions, children used these his preference for the optimal carrot, “I would pick number A. It's more personifications to share their past experiences with buying and eating orange-er because that one [B] has got a little brown in it”. Similarly, in misshaped produce, implying liking for misshaped produce. Isabel (9) another focus group, a girl (9) stated, “It (the suboptimal apple) doesn't exclaimed, “I buy “carrot people”! Once mum got this one that really-really look as appealing like the other (optimal) apple. It doesn't look as bright”. looked like a person! (Laughs)”. Selena (6) recalled, “My pop had a carrot When a fruit or vegetable did not have the most appropriate colour or and they were two carrots stuck together like they were friends”. These pigment, it was perceived as not good enough. This was observed for experiences were used to derive positive taste perceptions. For example, produce which were bi-coloured. For example, Carl (8) commented on some children felt that the taste would not be significantly different, as the colour “green” on several suboptimal produce while choosing pro- Isabel (9) stated, “I would [eat it] … It won't taste terrible. I-I tell you I have duce to infer them as “bad”. For example, he told his friends while done that!” Likewise, Stan (6) explained, “I-I ate pears before, but I'm not shopping, “Peppers, I know the difference that's green and bad (pointing to a sure if I've eaten a pear like that. But I know it will still taste the same predominantly yellow suboptimal capsicum). And the green here (showing a because all pears in New Zealand will be the same because it doesn't matter if suboptimal tomato) is bad, means it's not fully grown yet and it has lots of it's being turned [shape defect], it will still be yummy”. green. That-that's green and that's got all the nasty bites in it.” Sage (9) Some children mentioned the shape defect to justify their rejection compared the colour of apples to explain why she chose the most op- of misshaped produce. Personal liking for fruits and vegetables to ad- timal (red) apple during the shopping task, “Because it's quite red than here to the normal/typical shape reflected children's dislike for mis- the other [suboptimal apple] cause the other is quite green”. When these shaped produce. During the shopping activity, Olly (8) swapped a discolourations leaned towards brown, most children reacted nega- suboptimal carrot for an optimal one because he wanted a straight tively, and infered negative taste and safety perceptions which affected carrot, “Yeah like straight ones”, then showing another misshaped sub- final choice, “ Because it's all brown it won't taste that good” said Minnie optimal carrot he said, “This one I'll definitely not take”. He explained this (6) as she returned a suboptimal orange while shopping. Rob (5) picked later during the group discussion, “Well I like every carrot, but-um I need up the same orange and said “It's got brown, lots of brown because it's to say that the B [suboptimal] one is quite bad because it's bent and I like mouldy” and put it back on the table. straight carrots.” [I: How come you like straight carrots better?] “Easy to eat!” Similarly, during the group discussions Tina (9) shared that she 3.3. Blemish perceptions would not choose the suboptimal carrot because, “Carrot B is wonky. I don't like wonky carrots because they are a different shape.” [I: What don't Blemishes on suboptimal produce were largely perceived nega- you like about the different shape?] “Uh … Cause I'm very organised”. tively. An instinctive dislike for fresh produce with blemishes made it A few children perceived shape defects to negatively affect taste, “I easier to reject blemished produce. For example, during the group would eat [carrot] A, because A looks more yummy, and B would be, uh discussions Gabby (10) said she wouldn't choose the suboptimal carrot maybe, B is a little bit off-tasting”, said Ava (10) during the group dis- because, “there's little marks and it's a little scarred”. During the shopping cussions. Connotations of disgust was used to describe these negative activity, Ken (7) mentioned, “I'm looking for one orange that doesn't have taste perceptions: While shopping, two boys in the 5–6 year old group so much dots on it. For me I don't really like one's with dots” and Wren (9) discussed why they would not choose a misshaped orange, “This is a said, “These all (carrots) have cracks in them … probably I'm going to get bum (Laughs)! The skin would taste like a bum … It will still taste like a bum ones without them”. The presence of blemishes affected taste percep- [on the inside]”. Shape defects were also used to infer safety. For ex- tions, which in turn determined choice: “Cause I don't like it when fruits ample, during the shopping activity Adam (9) said when swapping a have like those big bruises cause it means that they don't taste very good”, suboptimal orange for an optimal one, “There is a big crease so it might be explained Becky (7) while she chose the produce on her shopping list. bruised on the inside … It's got that [the shape defect] there so it's not going Suboptimal produce with blemishes were described as “ugly” and to be okay”. “disgusting” during the focus group discussions. For example, Tom (11) Some children confessed that although the shape had little to do compared a suboptimal carrot with an optimal one, “One is really-really with the edibility of the produce, they would still reject it. For instance, ugly because it has brown things on it, and it's got scars on it. And the other Tom (11) shared with the focus group that he did not find the sub- one's pretty” and Pete (10) supported Tom's opinion, “I also think it is ugly optimal carrot less nutritious, yet he rejected it, “I would choose A. Well, because it looks really old and dirty cause it's got all those spots in it. And

5 A. Makhal, et al. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 54 (2020) 101945 then, the A looks like a normal fresh carrot”. Similarly, Steffi (7) said she 4. Discussion would not choose a bruised apple, “Because it doesn't look very appetising”. The results show that children use appearance cues, namely defects Children also inferred the freshness of the suboptimal produce from in shape, size, blemishes, and colour, to infer the edibility and accept- the presence of blemishes. For example, during the shopping activity, ability of suboptimal produce. More importantly, the findings reveal Sean (8) said that he was “looking for ripe one's … (picks up a suboptimal that although children largely reject produce that is blemished or orange) No this is not ripe cause it's got marks on the skin”. Many parti- brown, children are accepting of suboptimal produce that is misshapen cipants conveyed concerns about the safety of consuming suboptimal or an atypical colour (other than brown). Furthermore, experience with produce due to the presence of blemishes during the group discussions. consuming suboptimal produce was found to be a strong driver of ac- For example, Ken (7) perceived a health risk from eating a slightly ceptance and favourable taste perceptions of suboptimal produce. This bruised apple, “… and you might get sick … Yeah cause it might have bugs is the first empirical study to show how children perceive suboptimal in it”. Similarly, Sage (9) did not choose a suboptimal orange because produce and the findings highlight opportunities for retailers to market she was certain that the blemishes made the orange unsafe to eat, “Not suboptimal produce based on different appearance defects, a method exactly cause this one has (points out to a marks on the outside) … I can see recommended by past research (De Hooge et al., 2017). that it’s quite rotten on the inside”. The word “dirt” was also used to infer Out of all the appearance cues, children were most tolerant of shape contamination or risk to food safety, “There could be dirt or things like defects and least tolerant of blemishes, aligning with past research with that. It's just on the outside but you don't know what's gross on the inside. So, adults who were found to be more willing to buy, and demanded the I probably wouldn't eat it” (Sarah, 11). Similarly, Aron (8) suspected the lowest discount for, a bent cucumber as opposed to a blemished apple safety of consuming a blemished carrot, “Because it's quite damaged and (De Hooge et al., 2017). However, unlike adult samples (Loebnitz and bacteria can get it”. Grunert, 2015; Loebnitz et al., 2015), most children instinctively used Children accepted blemished produce when they were regarded as the extreme shape defects to personify misshaped produce into “fun” the “loveable underdogs”. For example, during the focus group dis- shapes and objects (e.g., “alien”, “phone”), to derive positive taste cussions a group of girls in the 10–11 year group insisted against the perceptions and express their preference for misshaped produce. This other group members that the suboptimal carrot was not ugly. One of finding aligns with past research showing children's vegetable con- them, Nadine (10), perceived the blemishes to add to its aesthetic ap- sumption increases when cut into fun shapes (Olsen et al., 2012; Branen peal, “B is pretty … No B is cute! B is pretty! It's pretty because it looks cute et al., 2002). The finding that children generally perceive misshaped [because] it has scars on it”. Blemished produce was also accepted when produce as appealing and tasty, provides retailers with the opportunity the marks/bruises were perceived to not affect the edibility of the to market such produce to children. Marketing misshaped produce as produce. During the group discussions a child in the 5–6 year old group “different” confers an attribute of uniqueness, which adds value to the evaluated the freshness of a suboptimal orange to counter argue: “Wait! produce by giving them a personality, and allows consumers to sym- I would still eat it because that doesn't mean that it’s old, it just means that pathise with them as the “loveable underdogs” (Aschemann-Witzel it’s scraped. I'd still eat the whole thing”. The past experience of eating et al., 2016b), thereby encouraging the purchase of suboptimal produce blemished produce helped children con firm that even the presence of (Ketron and Naletelich, 2019). The Imperfect Picks is one such project blemishes will not affect the taste of the produce, Boy (9) stressed that uses cartoon characters to encourage children to try suboptimal during the group discussions: “… its food so why wouldn't I eat it … why fruits and vegetables (Youth AgSummit, 2017). Retailers could do the would it taste different? It's just a carrot with marks on it”. Similarly, Bella same by using friendly cartoons of suboptimal produce to appeal to (8) explained during the discussions, “It doesn't really matter, it's only the children along with marketing them as the “misfits” and ‘rebels’ (Louis outside [of a blemished carrot] that's damaged”. and Lombart, 2018). Size preferences for produce was a matter of personal preferences. Some children always chose large sized produce because it was con- 3.4. Size perceptions sidered a rational or normal thing to do, which could stem from how they have been normalised to choose produce in store (Pettersson et al., References to size were made only during the shopping activity. 2004). While some children in the youngest age group (5-6-year olds) Suboptimal sizes were considered acceptable depending on individual preferred small sized produce, the older children perceived them to be size preferences. For example, Jade (5) preferred smaller (suboptimal) of less value. This finding is opposite to our expectation that children pears, “I am looking for small pears, this (basket) is heavy”. Field notes would prefer smaller sized produce as fruits and vegetables are less from the observational study show that Hailey (8) used size as a preferred foods (Colapinto et al., 2007). Typically, consumers prefer parameter to choose the produce on her shopping list, irrespective of larger portion sizes (Vermeer et al., 2010) because of the greater value the other appearance cues: Hailey has to pick two potatoes and two obtained for the price paid. Given that the underlying principal of lemons. She finds the potatoes, chooses one and says “big”. She chooses choice likelihood is value perception (Zeithaml, 1988), retailers could another one and says “big”. She then looks at the lemons and says “big” sell larger-sized suboptimal produce as they are likely to be perceived to choosing the largest two of the lot. Hailey chose all suboptimal produce. The have better price value. Further, retailers could also sell small-sized participants also preferred large sized produce especially when a fruit produce as pre-bagged varieties to younger children who have smaller or vegetable was a personal favourite. Nate (8) explained why he chose appetites (Bruhn, 1995). Therefore, retailers have the opportunity to very large suboptimal potatoes, “I got two big ones because I really like appeal differently sized suboptimal produce to different young con- potatoes”. sumer cohorts. With regards to negative size perceptions, small sized produce were In support of our assumption, blemishes were the least tolerated considered the obvious rejects. For instance, Carl (8) compared the size appearance cue by most children as they were perceived to affect the of the two apples, “… and (the suboptimal apple) it's smaller than that (the freshness and safety of the produce. Likewise, previous literature sup- optimal) one” to explain why he preferred the optimal one and inferred ports that adults too perceive blemished fruit as unsafe to consume (De that the smaller ones are less nutritious than larger ones, “It is small, Hooge et al., 2017) and that improving value perception is imperative doesn't give you much protein but that, that's bulgy and rich”. Another Girl to increase its choice likelihood (Jaeger et al., 2016; Yue et al., 2007, (8) explained why she swapped a small suboptimal carrot for a larger 2009). Of importance, children who have been exposed to, or have optimal one during the shopping task, “Well, it's a bit small, so it won't eaten blemished produce, were less fussy about cosmetic blemishes and last me more”. perceived that blemishes do not affect the taste. As food waste is the outcome of food devaluation and exaggerated safety concerns (Graham-

6 A. Makhal, et al. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 54 (2020) 101945

Rowe et al., 2014; Watson and Meah, 2013), and given that some regards to the effects of suboptimal food exposure and increased food children who have had the experience of eating blemished produce involvement. It is also recommended that research using more rigorous perceived them positively goes to show that food experiences (such as quantitative and/or experimental methods should be used to study eating blemished fruit) are valuable for demystifying food mispercep- children's suboptimal food perceptions to validate our findings. tions. However, only a few children perceived blemishes to add to the aesthetic appeal of fresh produce. Thus, we posit that marketing 5. Implications blemished produce could be challenging for retailers and an alternative approach would be to repurpose them as ingredients in dishes (such as Broader research implications are recognised. Although children baked goods, smoothies, and salads) sold in-store (Havercamp, 2015). were accepting of atypical shapes, sizes and colours, most produce with Children used the chromatic brightness of the produce to determine blemishes, or the colour “brown”, or in some cases “green”, were per- choice, an appearance cue which is similarly used by adults (Lee et al., ceived as “dirty”, “bad”, “disgusting”,or“ugly”, resonating with 2013). Discoloured/bi-coloured produce were perceived to taste sour, Douglas' sociological philosophy on the classification of clean or pure which some children liked (while others disliked) and likewise lead to and dirty or danger (Cappellini, 2009; Blichfeldt et al., 2015). Douglas' its acceptance (or rejection), respectively. This finding partly supports (2003) societal classification of clean and dirty can be applied to the our assumption that children would prefer fresh produce with atypical suboptimal food waste context where produce that do not fit with the colours. We found that children who had experienced eating atypical optimal/typical appearance are deemed “dirty”, “bad”, “disgusting” coloured produce, or sour tasting fruits, were more likely to appreciate and “ugly”, need to be removed or in this case rejected, because the the perceived sour taste. Research finds repeated exposure to sour unfamiliar appearance renders the food unsafe or contaminated. The tasting fruits develops children's liking for sour flavours (Daniel, 2016). intolerance of natural defects in fruits and vegetables has little to do Therefore, increasing children's familiarity with discoloured produce with the quality and edibility of the food (Stuart, 2009). However, could potentially improve taste perceptions. However, the presence of given that the social world uses the classification of dirty and clean the colour “brown” and in some cases the colour “green” deemed (Douglas, 2003), sensitivity to appearance defects in fresh produce produce as unacceptable regardless of experience. Thus, alongside could originate from this sociological impact on the expectation of previous research we found children have less stable colour preferences perfect-looking produce, which if not met, entails perceptions of ined- for fresh produce (Poelman and Delahunty, 2011) and retailers could ibility, contamination, and distaste, and ultimately leads to the rejec- therefore market discoloured (with the exception of green or brown tion of edible imperfect produce. In support, research finds that safety discolorations) produce to children. The commercial success of selling concerns about consuming foods with superficial packaging damages discoloured produce as is would take long-term reformative policies increases the rejection of foods in supermarkets (White et al., 2016), that change consumer perceptions about atypically coloured produce and children too consider food inedible and non-food when a question (Schifferstein et al., 2018), in the meantime retailers would benefit of contamination and distaste arises (Fallon et al., 1984). This rejection from repurposing suboptimal produce with predominantly “brown” and could also emerge from consumers’“beauty is good” bias, wherein “green” discolorations as ingredients in pre-prepared meals. consumers perceive aesthetically appealing familiar foods to taste good The limitations of this study are recognised. The data was collected (Wansink and Payne, 2010). For some children in this study, an atypical from a single school. Owing to the sampling procedure, the number of appearance alone sufficed for the rejection of the suboptimal produce children in the age groups were unequal, which posed as a disadvantage irrespective of positive edibility perceptions, thus reflecting the in- for comparing the findings. Additionally, the shopping activity set-up doctrination of the “beauty is good” bias or, in this case, the “normal is was relatively unnatural compared to the real in-store environment in acceptable” heuristic when making choices. It is therefore imperative to an actual supermarket – it is therefore likely that other factors, such as inform and reassure consumers that appearance defects in fresh pro- store atmospherics, price, and parental/caregiver influence, may also duce have little to do with the safety and edibility of suboptimal pro- affect final choice in the real world. Future research, could carry out duce. more realistic observations of families with children choosing produce Providing information about the safety and edibility of suboptimal in-store. Although past research notes consumer perceptions of sub- produce has been found to significantly improve consumer acceptance optimal produce to socio-demographically differ (Rohm et al., 2017; (Bunn et al., 1990; Yue et al., 2009). For example, the New Zealand Stuart, 2009), no such differences were observed for the study which supermarket Countdown sells “The odd bunch” of suboptimal fruits and stands as a limitation. However, it would be worthwhile for future re- vegetables with a tagline “looks odd, tastes great” to reassure con- search to explore such socio-demographic diff erences in young consumers that the suboptimal appearance does not affect taste (Love Food sumers' perceptions of suboptimal produce. Another potential limita- Hate Waste New Zealand, 2017). Consumer acceptance of atypical food tion is that the data was self-reported from children. However, we also is also reliant on supermarkets’ willingness to sell them (Devin and recognise that studying consumer behaviour through the eyes of chil- Richards, 2016; Osborn, 2016). Therefore, creating shelf space for dren provides honest and valuable insights into consumer decision- produce with suboptimal appearance, along with effective commu- making processes (Gelman and Echelbarger, 2019), given that children nication of food waste avoidance and a guarantee of food quality, is are induced into consumerism from an early age (Buckingham, 2007). constructive towards increasing suboptimal food familiarity and ac- While the study has recognised the advantages of having children who ceptance (Kulikovskaja and Aschemann-Witzel, 2017). are of the same age range and within the same grade, it could also pose as a disadvantage because the possibility of children replicating or 6. Conclusion agreeing to answers by their peers to maintain a favourable image of themselves post data collection remains. Future research could build on Food waste is a sustainability problem with social, economic and this research by conducting a much larger study across a wider age environmental consequences (Gustavsson et al., 2011; Cicatiello et al., range to study the factors that lead to the socialisation of appearance- 2016), thus it is important to avoid food waste to prevent its negative based preferences for fresh fruits and vegetables. The discussion around consequences in the near and distant future (Papargyropoulou et al., the sociological influences that train consumers to form appearance 2014). By understanding children's perceptions of suboptimal foods, preferences should be further studied to understand the most effective this paper has taken the first step suggested by previous research for the ways to normalise consumers from a young age to be more accepting of inclusion of a sociological understanding of food appearance pre- suboptimal fruits and vegetables, which in the long run could address ferences in the context of food waste (Block et al., 2016). Our findings the problem of suboptimal fruit and vegetable waste. Future research show that children use the same appearance cues as adults to perceive could potentially explore these food socialisations, particularly with the edibility of suboptimal produce, but children emphasise these

7 A. Makhal, et al. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 54 (2020) 101945 perceptions differently. Specifically, shape, colour, and size abnormal- A.H., 2016. The squander sequence: understanding food waste at each stage of the ities were mostly perceived positively while at large, blemishes were consumer decision-making process. J. Public Policy Mark. 35 (2), 292–304. https:// doi.org/10.1509/jppm.15.132. perceived negatively. For the number of children who perceived sub- Branen, L., Fletcher, J., Hilbert, L., 2002. Snack consumption and waste by preschool optimal produce negatively, unfamiliarity was the main reason for the children served “cute” versus regular snacks. J. Nutr. Educ. Behav. 34 (5), 279–282. non-acceptance of suboptimal produce; conversely, the positive ed- https://doi.org/10.1016/s1499-4046(06)60107-3. Available from: http://www. sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1499404606601073. ibility perceptions emerged from previous experiences and exposure to Braun, V., Clarke, V., 2006. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual. Res. Psychol. 3 suboptimal foods, which in turn developed into preference and liking. (2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa. This suggests that appearance-based preferences for produce are so- Bruhn, C.M., 1995. Consumer and retailer satisfaction with the quality and size of – cialised through exposure, which we recommend future research to California peaches and nectarines. J. Food Qual. 18 (3), 241 256. https://doi.org/10. 1111/j.1745-4557.1995.tb00378.x. explore. Buckingham, D., 2007. Selling childhood? Children and consumer culture. J. Child. Media The novelty of appearance defects appealed to most children, which 1 (1), 15–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/17482790601005017. can be leveraged by retailers by targeting suboptimal foods to children Bunn, D., Feenstra, G.W., Lynch, L., Somer, R., 1990. Consumer acceptance of cosmetically imperfect produce. J. Consum. Aff. 24 (2), 268–279. https://doi.org/10.1111/j. (Marshall, 2014; Pettersson et al., 2004). Retailers could gain from 1745-6606.1990.tb00269.x. stronger brand associations and improved brand image from young Cappellini, B., 2009. The sacrifice of re-use: the travels of leftovers and family relations. J. – consumers through such sustainability-driven initiatives (Loussaïef Consum. Behav. 8 (6), 365 375. https://doi.org/10.1002/cb.299. Cardello, A.V., 1994. Consumer expectations and their role in food acceptance. In: et al., 2014). Hence, there lies immense potential in addressing the MACFIE, H.J.H., THOMSON, D.M.H. (Eds.), Measurement of Food Preferences. sustainability problem of suboptimal food waste through children, as Springer US, Boston, MA. they are more likely to accept them and also influence their families' Cicatiello, C., Franco, S., Pancino, B., Blasi, E., 2016. The value of food waste: an exploratory study on retailing. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 30, 96–104. https://doi.org/10. produce buying and consumption habits (Grønhøj, 2016; Wilson and 1016/j.jretconser.2016.01.004. Wood, 2004). Most communication and pricing strategies have limited Clayton, R., Carnegie, T., 2017. 'Ugly' fruit and vege to be sold in supermarkets at lower impact on food valuation and choice, thereby making interventions that prices. Stuff, 19 February. Available at: https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/ ff 89497690/ugly-fruit-and-vege-to-be-sold-in-supermarkets-at-lower-prices, Accessed normalise suboptimal produce more e ective (Aschemann-Witzel, date: 5 October 2018. 2018a). To leverage the movement towards improved value perception Colapinto, C.K., Fitzgerald, A., Taper, L.J., Veugelers, P.J., 2007. Children's preference for of suboptimal produce (e.g., change edibility misperceptions), it is large portions: prevalence, determinants, and consequences. J. Am. Diet. Assoc. 107 – imperative for retailers and the wider community to target younger (7), 1183 1190. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jada.2007.04.012. Available from: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002822307005913. children to train them into future consumers, who value food irre- Daniel, C., 2016. Economic constraints on taste formation and the true cost of healthy spective of appearance. The interventions could be applied through eating. Soc. Sci. Med. 148, 34–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2015.11. school-run and community programs that seek to increase children's 025. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26650928. Darbyshire, P., Macdougall, C., Schiller, W., 2005. Multiple methods in qualitative re- food engagement through growing and cooking food. For example, food search with children: more insight or just more? Qual. Res. 5 (4), 417–436. https:// activists are working to encourage children to accept suboptimal fruits journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1468794105056921 10.1177/ and vegetables (Figueiredo, n.d.). Creating food experiences through 1468794105056921.Available from:. De Hooge, I.E., Oostindjer, M., Aschemann-Witzel, J., Normann, A., Loose, S.M., Almli, suboptimal food exposure could increase familiarity and acceptance of V.L., 2017. This apple is too ugly for me!. Food Qual. Prefer. 56, 80–92. https://doi. suboptimal produce. org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2016.09.012. De Moura, S.L., 2007. Determinants of food rejection amongst school children. Appetite 49 (3), 716–719. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2007.08.006. Available from: References http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S019566630700339X. Deng, X., Srinivasan, R., 2013. When do transparent packages increase (or decrease) food – Aschemann-Witzel, J., 2018a. Consumer perception and preference for suboptimal food consumption? J. Mark. 77 (4), 104 117. https://doi.org/10.1509/jm.11.0610. under the emerging practice of expiration date based pricing in supermarkets. Food Devin, B., Richards, C., 2016. Food waste, power, and corporate social responsibility in – Qual. Prefer. 63, 119–128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2017.08.007. the Australian food supply chain. J. Bus. Ethics 150 (1), 199 210. https://doi.org/10. Aschemann-Witzel, J., 2018b. Helping you to waste less? Consumer acceptance of food 1007/s10551-016-3181-z. marketing offers targeted to food-related lifestyle segments of consumers. J. Food Douglas, M., 2003. Purity and Danger. An Analysis of Concept of Pollution and Taboo. Prod. Mark. 24 (5), 522–538. https://doi.org/10.1080/10454446.2018.1472693. Routledge, London and New York. Aschemann-Witzel, J., De Hooge, I., Amani, P., Bech-Larsen, T., Oostindjer, M., 2015. Dovey, T.M., Aldridge, V.K., Dignan, W., Staples, P.A., Gibson, E.L., Halford, J.C., 2012. ff Consumer-related food waste: causes and potential for action. Sustainability 7 (6), Developmental di erences in sensory decision making involved in deciding to try a – 6457–6477. https://doi.org/10.3390/su7066457. novel fruit. Br. J. Health Psychol. 17 (2), 258 272. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044- Aschemann-Witzel, J., De Hooge, I., Normann, A., 2016a. Consumer-related food waste: 8287.2011.02036.x. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/ role of food marketing and retailers and potential for action. J. Int. Food & Agribus. 22107257. Mark. 28 (3), 271–285. https://doi.org/10.1080/08974438.2015.1110549. Drenten, J., Okleshen Peters, C., Boyd Thomas, J., 2008. An exploratory investigation of Aschemann-Witzel, J., De Hooge, I.E., Rohm, H., Normann, A., Bossle, M.B., Grønhøj, A., the dramatic play of preschool children within a grocery store shopping context. Int. – Oostindjer, M., 2016b. Key characteristics and success factors of supply chain in- J. Retail Distrib. Manag. 36 (10), 831 855. https://doi.org/10.1108/ itiatives tackling consumer-related food waste – a multiple case study. J. Clean. Prod. 09590550810901017. 155, 33–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.11.173. Elo, S., Kyngäs, H., 2008. The qualitative content analysis process. J. Adv. Nurs. 62, – Aschemann-Witzel, J., Jensen, J.H., Jensen, M.H., Kulikovskaja, V., 2017. Consumer 107 115. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04569.x. Available from: behaviour towards price-reduced suboptimal foods in the supermarket and the re- https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04569.x. lation to food waste in households. Appetite 116, 246–258. https://doi.org/10.1016/ Fallon, A.E., Rozin, P., Pliner, P., 1984. The child's conception of food: the development of j.appet.2017.05.013. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/ food rejections with special reference to disgust and contamination sensitivity. Child – 28487247. Dev. 55 (2), 566 575. https://doi.org/10.2307/1129968. Aschemann-Witzel, J., Giménez, A., Ares, G., 2018. Consumer in-store choice of sub- FAO, 2017. Save food: Global initiative on food loss and waste reduction [Online]. FAO. fi optimal food to avoid food waste: the role of food category, communication and Available: http://www.fao.org/save-food/resources/key ndings/infographics/fruit/ perception of quality dimensions. Food Qual. Prefer. 68, 29–39. https://doi.org/10. en/, Accessed date: 9 December 2017. fi 1016/j.foodqual.2018.01.020. Figueiredo, J. Children join the ght against food waste with ugly fruit and veg, [Online]. Atkin, C.K., 1978. Observation of parent-child interaction in supermarket decision- Foodtank. Available: https://foodtank.com/news/2017/08/ugly-fruit-and-veg- making. J. Mark. 42 (4), 41–45. 10.2307/1250084._Available from: http://www. campaign/, Accessed date: 10 October 2018. jstor.org/stable/1250084. Foley, J.A., Defries, R., Asner, G.P., Barford, C., Bonan, G., Carpenter, S.R., Chapin, F.S., Ayadi, K., Cao, L., 2016. Exploring children's responses to store atmosphere. Int. J. Retail Coe, M.T., Daily, G.C., Gibbs, H.K., Helkowski, J.H., Holloway, T., Howard, E.A., Distrib. Manag. 44 (10), 1030–1046. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJRDM-08-2015-0125. Kucharik, C.J., Monfreda, C., Patz, J.A., Prentice, I.C., Ramankutty, N., Snyder, P.K., – Bertol, K.E., Broilo, P.L., Espartel, L.B., Basso, K., 2017. Young children's influence on 2005. Global consequences of land use. Science 309 (5734), 570 574. https://doi. family consumer behavior. Qual. Mark. Res. Int. J. 20 (4), 452–468. https://doi.org/ org/10.1126/science.1111772. 10.1108/QMR-07-2016-0057. Gaumer, C.J., Arnone, C., 2009. Grocery store observation: parent-child interaction in – Blichfeldt, B.S., Mikkelsen, M., Gram, M., 2015. When it stops being food: the edibility, family purchases. J. Food Prod. Mark. 16 (1), 1 18. https://doi.org/10.1080/ ideology, procrastination, objectification and internalization of household food 10454440802537207. waste. Food Cult. Soc.: An International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research 18 (1), Gelman, S.A., Echelbarger, M., 2019. Children and consumer behavior: insights, ques- – 89–105. https://doi.org/10.2752/175174415x14101814953963. tions, and new frontiers. J. Consum. Psychol. 29 (2), 344 349. https://doi.org/10. Block, L.G., Keller, P.A., Vallen, B., Williamson, S., Birau, M.M., Grinstein, A., Haws, K.L., 1002/jcpy.1096. Available from: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/ Labarge, M.C., Lamberton, C., Moore, E.S., Moscato, E.M., Reczek, R.W., Tangari, jcpy.1096.

8 A. Makhal, et al. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 54 (2020) 101945

Gibson, F., 2007. Conducting focus groups with children and young people: strategies for Consum. Serv. 21 (1), 9–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2013.09.005. success. J. Res. Nurs. 12 (5), 473–483. https://doi.org/10.1177/17449871079791. Available from: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/ Gibson, J.E., 2012. Interviews and focus groups with children: methods that match S0969698913001070. children's developing competencies. Journal of Family Theory & Review 4 (2), Love Food Hate Waste New Zealand, 2017. Introducing the Odd Bunch: why you should 148–159. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1756-2589.2012.00119.x. love imperfect fruit and vegetables. [Online]. Available: https://lovefoodhatewaste. Graham-Rowe, E., Jessop, D.C., Sparks, P., 2014. Identifying motivations and barriers to co.nz/introducing-the-odd-bunch/, Accessed date: 11 December 2017. minimising household food waste. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 84, 15–23. https://doi. Lucchini, R., 1996. Theory, method and traingualtion in the study of street children. org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2013.12.005. Childhood 3 (2), 167–170. https://doi.org/10.1177/0907568296003002004. Grønhøj, A., 2016. Consumer behaviours: teaching children to save energy. Nature Marshall, D., 2014. Co-operation in the supermarket aisle: young children's accounts of Energy 1 (8). https://doi.org/10.1038/nenergy.2016.108. family food shopping. Int. J. Retail Distrib. Manag. 42 (11/12), 990–1003. https:// Gustavsson, J., Cederberg, C., Sonesson, U., Van Otterdijk, R., Meybeck, A., 2011. Global doi.org/10.1108/IJRDM-08-2013-0165. Available from: https://www. food losses and food waste - extent, Causes and prevention. Available: http://www. emeraldinsight.com/doi/abs/10.1108/IJRDM-08-2013-0165. fao.org/docrep/014/mb060e/mb060e.pdf. Mena, C., Adenso-Diaz, B., Yurt, O., 2011. The causes of food waste in the supplier–re- Halloran, A., Clement, J., Kornum, N., Bucatariu, C., Magid, J., 2014. Addressing food tailer interface: evidences from the UK and Spain. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 55 (6), waste reduction in Denmark. Food Policy 49, 294–301. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. 648–658. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2010.09.006. foodpol.2014.09.005. Morrow, V., 2001. Using qualitative methods to elicit young people's perspectives on their Havercamp, K., 2015. Food Waste as “Excess”: Consumer Culture and Society and its environments: some ideas for community health initiatives. Health Educ. Res. 16 (3), Impact on Food Waste. University of Bern. 255–268. https://doi.org/10.1093/her/16.3.255. Heary, C.M., Hennessy, E., 2002. The use of focus group interviews in pediatric health Mortimer, G., 2015. Taste over waste: ugly food movement winning friends [Online]. The care research. J. Pediatr. Psychol. 27 (1), 47–57. https://doi.org/10.1093/jpepsy/27. Conversation AU. Available: https://theconversation.com/taste-over-waste-ugly- 1.47. food-movement-winning-friends-38987, Accessed date: 16 November 2018. Heary, C., Hennessy, E., 2006. Focus groups versus individual interviews with children: a Nix, v, 1893. Hedden 149. U.S. Supreme Court. comparison of data. Ir. J. Psychol. 27 (1–2), 58–68. https://doi.org/10.1080/ Olsen, A., Ritz, C., Kramer, L., Moller, P., 2012. Serving styles of raw snack vegetables. 03033910.2006.10446228. What do children want? Appetite 59 (2), 556–562. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet. Helmert, J.R., Symmank, C., Pannasch, S., Rohm, H., 2017. Have an eye on the buckled 2012.07.002. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22796947. cucumber: an eye tracking study on visually suboptimal foods. Food Qual. Prefer. 60, Olson, J.C., 1978. Inferential belief formation in the cue utilization process. In: HUNT, K. 40–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2017.03.009. (Ed.), Association for Consumer Research, (Ann Abor, MI: NA - Advances in Institution of Mechanical Engineers, 2013. Global Food: Waste Not, Want Not. Institution Consumer Research). of Mechanical Engineers, London Available: https://www.imeche.org/policy-and- Osborn, S., 2016. Wastage of food. Encyclopedia of Food and Health 447–452. https:// press/reports/detail/global-food-waste-not-want-not, Accessed date: 1 October 2018. doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-12-384947-2.00733-9. Intermarché, 2014. Inglorious fruits & vegetables. [Online]. Available: http://itm. Paakki, M., Sandell, M., Hopia, A., 2016. Consumer's reactions to natural, atypically co- marcelww.com/inglorious/, Accessed date: 10 October 2018. lored foods: an investigation using blue potatoes. J. Sens. Stud. 31 (1), 78–89. Jaeger, S.R., Harker, R., Triggs, C.M., Gunson, A., Campbell, R.L., Jackman, R., Requejo- https://doi.org/10.1111/joss.12193. Jackman, C., 2011. Determining consumer purchase intentions: the importance of dry Page, B., Sharp, A., Lockshin, L., Sorensen, H., 2018. Parents and children in super- matter, size, and price of kiwifruit. J. Food Sci. 76 (3), S177–S184. https://doi.org/ markets: incidence and influence. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 40, 31–39. https://doi. 10.1111/j.1750-3841.2011.02084.x. Available from: https://onlinelibrary.wiley. org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2017.08.023. Available from: http://www.sciencedirect. com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1750-3841.2011.02084.x. com/science/article/pii/S0969698917301145. Jaeger, S.R., Antúnez, L., Ares, G., Johnston, J.W., Hall, M., Harker, F.R., 2016. Papargyropoulou, E., Lozano, R., Steinberger, J.K., Wright, N., Bin Ujang, Z., 2014. The Consumers' visual attention to fruit defects and disorders: a case study with apple food waste hierarchy as a framework for the management of food surplus and food images. Postharvest Biol. Technol. 116, 36–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. waste. J. Clean. Prod. 76, 106–115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.04.020. postharvbio.2015.12.015. Pettersson, A., Olsson, U., Fjellström, C., 2004. Family life in grocery stores – a study of Jaeger, S.R., Machín, L., Aschemann-Witzel, J., Antúnez, L., Harker, F.R., Ares, G., 2018. interaction between adults and children. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 28 (4), 317–328. Buy, eat or discard? A case study with apples to explore fruit quality perception and https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1470-6431.2004.00389.x. food waste. Food Qual. Prefer. 69, 10–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2018. Poelman, A.a.M., Delahunty, C.M., 2011. The effect of preparation method and typicality 05.004. Available from: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/ of colour on children's acceptance for vegetables. Food Qual. Prefer. 22 (4), 355–364. S0950329318303665. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2011.01.001. Available from: http://www. John, D.R., 1999. Consumer socialization of children: a retrospective look at twenty-five sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0950329311000103. years of research. J. Consum. Res. 26 (3), 183–213. 10.1086/209559._Available from: Rohm, H., Oostindjer, M., Aschemann-Witzel, J., Symmank, C., V.,L.A., De Hooge, I.E., http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/209559. Normann, A., Karantininis, K., 2017. Consumers in a sustainable food supply chain Kennedy, C., Kools, S., Krueger, R., 2001. Methodological considerations in children's (COSUS): understanding consumer behavior to encourage food waste reduction. focus groups. Nurs. Res. 50 (3), 184–187. https://doi.org/10.1097/00006199- Foods 6 (12), 104–124. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods6120104. Available from: 200105000-00010. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29186883. Ketron, S., Naletelich, K., 2019. Victim or beggar? Anthropomorphic messengers and the Rust, L., 1993. Parents and children shopping together: a new approach to the qualitative savior effect in consumer sustainability behavior. J. Bus. Res. 96, 73–84. https://doi. analysis of observational data. (Observations). J. Advert. Res. 33, 65. Available from: org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.11.004. Available from: http://www.sciencedirect. http://web.b.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail/detail?vid=0&sid=6a9b2810-bb36- com/science/article/pii/S0148296318305563. 4050-b0c6-4bb3c5ee2380%40pdc-v-sessmgr01&bdata= Kirby, S.D., Baranowski, T., Reynolds, K.D., Taylor, G., Binkley, D., 1995. Children's fruit JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZSZzY29wZT1zaXRl#AN=9401195886&db=bth. and vegetable intake: socioeconomic, adult-child, regional, and urban-rural influ- Schifferstein, H.N.J., Wehrle, T., Carbon, C.-C., 2018. Consumer expectations for vege- ences. J. Nutr. Educ. 27 (5), 261–271. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0022-3182(12) tables with typical and atypical colors: the case of carrots. Food Qual. Prefer. 72, 80794-1. Available from: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/ 98–108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2018.10.002. Available from: http:// S0022318212807941. www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0950329318302933. Koch, C., Koch, E.C., 2003. Preconceptions of taste based on color. J. Psychol. 137 (3), Steenkamp, E.M.J.-B., 1990. Conceptual model of the quality perception process. J. Bus. 233–242. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980309600611. Res. 21 (4), 309–333. https://doi.org/10.1016/0148-2963(90)90019-a. Krueger, R.A., Casey, M.A., 2009. Focus Groups: A Practical Guide for Applied Research. Stewart, D.W., Shamdasani, P.N., 1990. Focus Groups, Theory and Practice. Sage Sage Publications, Inc, USA. Publications, USA. Kulikovskaja, V., Aschemann-Witzel, J., 2017. Food waste avoidance actions in food re- Stuart, T., 2009. Farming: potatoes have eyes. In: PROFITT, S. (Ed.), Waste: Uncovering tailing: the case of Denmark. J. Int. Food & Agribus. Mark. 29 (4), 328–345. https:// the Global Food Scandal. Penguin Books, London, England. doi.org/10.1080/08974438.2017.1350244. Stuhmcke, S.M., 2012. Children as Change Agents for Sustainability : an Action Research Lee, S.-M., Lee, K.-T., Lee, S.-H., Song, J.-K., 2013. Origin of human colour preference for Case Study in a Kindergarten. Professional Doctorate, Queensland University of food. J. Food Eng. 119 (3), 508–515. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2013.06. Technology Available from: https://eprints.qut.edu.au/61005/. 021. Available from: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/ Symmank, C., Zahn, S., Rohm, H., 2018. Visually suboptimal bananas: how ripeness af- S0260877413003221. fects consumer expectation and perception. Appetite 120, 472–481. https://doi.org/ Leksrisompong, P.P., Whitson, M.E., Truong, V.D., Drake, M.A., 2012. Sensory attributes 10.1016/j.appet.2017.10.002. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/ and consumer acceptance of sweet potato cultivars with varying flesh colors. J. Sens. pubmed/29017908. Stud. 27 (1), 59–69. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-459X.2011.00367.x. Turner, B., 2014. Cut-price ‘ugly’ supermarket food won't reduce waste – here's why [Online]. Loebnitz, N., Grunert, K.G., 2015. The effect of food shape abnormality on purchase in- The Conversation AU. Available: https://theconversation.com/cut-price-ugly- tentions in China. Food Qual. Prefer. 40, 24–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual. supermarket-food-wont-reduce-waste-heres-why-35375, Accessed date: 16 2014.08.005. November 2018. Loebnitz, N., Schuitema, G., Grunert, K.G., 2015. Who buys oddly shaped food and why? Van Giesen, R.I., De Hooge, I.E., 2019. Too ugly, but I love its shape: reducing food waste Impacts of food shape abnormality and organic labeling on purchase intentions. of suboptimal products with authenticity (and sustainability) positioning. Food Qual. Psychol. Mark. 32 (4), 408–421. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.20788. Prefer. 75, 249–259. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2019.02.020. Louis, D., Lombart, C., 2018. Retailers' communication on ugly fruits and vegetables: Vermeer, W.M., Steenhuis, I.H.M., Seidell, J.C., 2010. Portion size: a qualitative study of what are consumers' perceptions? J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 41, 256–271. https://doi. consumers' attitudes toward point-of-purchase interventions aimed at portion size. org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2018.01.006. Health Educ. Res. 25 (1), 109–120. https://doi.org/10.1093/her/cyp051. Loussaïef, L., Cacho-Elizondo, S., Pettersen, I.B., Tobiassen, A.E., 2014. Do CSR actions in Wansink, B., Payne, C., 2010. What is beautiful tastes good: visual cues, taste, and will- retailing really matter for young consumers? A study in France and Norway. J. Retail. ingness to pay. In: Campbell, M.C., Inman, J., Pieters, R. (Eds.), Association for

9 A. Makhal, et al. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 54 (2020) 101945

Consumer Research, Duluth, MN. Annesha is a PhD scholar and the recipient of the International Doctoral Scholarship at Watne, T., Brennan, L., 2011. Behavioral change starts in the family: the role of family the University of Otago, New Zealand. Her current research concerns food appearance fi communication and implications for social marketing. J. Nonpro t & Public Sect. driven food waste. She is interested in cross-disciplinary research in Marketing and – Mark. 23 (4), 367 386. https://doi.org/10.1080/10495142.2011.623526. Consumer Food Science Watson, M., Meah, A., 2013. Food, waste and safety: negotiating conflicting social anxieties into the practices of domestic provisioning. Sociol. Rev. 60 (2_Suppl. l), 102–120. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-954x.12040. Maree is an Associate Professor in the Department of Marketing at the University of White, A., Gallegos, D., Hundloe, T., 2011. The impact of fresh produce specifications on Otago, New Zealand. Her research interests are in the areas of research methodologies the Australian food and nutrition system: a case study of the north Queensland ba- (particularly qualitative research), consumer behaviour, advertising to children, en- nana industry. Public Health Nutr. 14 (8), 1489–1495. https://doi.org/10.1017/ vironmental values and tourism marketing. She has several research publications in in- S1368980010003046. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/ ternational journals of repute. 21324222. White, K., Lin, L., Dahl, D.W., Ritchie, R.J.B., 2016. When do consumers avoid im- Kirsten is a Senior Lecturer in the Department of Marketing at the University of Otago, perfections? Superficial packaging damage as a contamination cue. J. Mark. Res. 53 New Zealand. Her research interests include consumption behaviour within obesogenic (1), 110–123. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmr.12.0388. environments, alcohol consumption behaviour, advertising to children, and consumerism Wilson, G., Wood, K., 2004. The influence of children on parental purchases during su- influences on children and parenting practices. She has several publications in reputed permarket shopping. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 28, 329–336. https://doi.org/10.1111/j. international journals and is currently a co-investigator on the 45th phase of the Dunedin 1470-6431.2004.00393.x. Available from: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/ Multidisciplinary Health and Development study. 10.1111/j.1470-6431.2004.00393.x. “ ” Youth Agsummit, 2017. Fighting food waste, one ugly fruit . at a time [Online]. Miranda is an Associate Professor in the Department of Food Science at the University of fi Available: https://www.youthagsummit.com/community/blog/ ghting-food-waste- Otago, New Zealand. As an interdisciplinarian with a background in marketing and one-ugly-fruit-at-a-time/, Accessed date: 12 November 2018. consumer behaviour, her research aims to understand why people eat what they do, why Yue, C., Jensen, H.H., Mueller, D.S., Nonnecke, G.R., Bonnet, D., Gleason, M.L., 2007. they don't eat what they don't, and how we might best impact upon these choices to Estimating consumers' valuation of organic and cosmetically damaged apples. encourage people to choose quality, healthy and environmentally sustainable foods. – Hortscience 42 (6), 1366 1371. Available from: http://hortsci.ashspublications.org/ Miranda is active in research and consulting regularly in areas relating to food waste. She content/42/6/1366.full. is currently involved in the WASTEMinz (the representative body of the waste and re- Yue, C., Alfnes, F., Jensen, H.H., 2009. Discounting spotted apples: investigating con- source recovery sector in New Zealand) National Consumer Food Waste Reduction pro- sumers' willingness to accept cosmetic damage in an organic product. J. Agric. Appl. ject. She has also established the University of Otago Food Waste Innovation Research – Econ. 41 (1), 29 46. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1074070800002534. Group (OUFWIRG) to focus on food waste. Zeithaml, V.A., 1988. Consumer perceptions of price, quality, and value: a means-end model and synthesis of evidence. J. Mark. Res. 52 (3), 2–22. Available from: http:// www.jstor.org/tc/accept?origin=/stable/pdf/1251446.pdf.