The researchers conducted seven different studies to test the effectiveness of the ugly labelling: In this study, researchers examined why consumers are less likely to purchase aesthetically unattractive produce, and test a low-cost, easy to implement solution: emphasizing the produce’s aesthetic flaw through ‘ugly’ labeling. Retailers and producers have attempted to combat this penalty in the past by labelling produce in an attempt to emphasize that the flaw is merely aesthetic.
Why do consumers reject produce with visual imperfections, even if there are no indications of damage or disease? An abnormal or “ugly” appearance can lead to an ‘ugliness penalty effect,’ where consumers believe that the produce is less tasty and less healthy. The production of the world’s produce also requires a large amount of land and water - it is estimated that as much as 25 percent of the world’s freshwater and up to 1.4 billion hectares of land are used in the production of produce that will later be thrown away. The large majority of this wasted produce ends up in landfills, which ultimately results in the release of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. In addition, this wasted produce has significant and far-reaching environmental impacts. This food waste results in financial losses not only for retailers, but also for producers. retailers throw away $15.4 billion of edible produce every year. Researchers have estimated that farmers discard up to 30 percent of their crops due to cosmetic imperfections, and U.S. Consumers’ beauty standards for produce are high, and a large amount of produce does not meet these standards, despite being perfectly healthy and edible. IntroductionĮvery year, both food producers and retailers throw away tons of perfectly edible produce based solely on physical appearance. This research brief was prepared by the BC Food Web team, based on an article published in Journal of Marketing.
0 kommentar(er)
