Description
Based on research that we have conducted; findings suggest that contractual unfairness in the fresh produce industry is a symptom of the power imbalances in the food supply chain. Retail organisations in the UK hold the most influence for decisions made along food supply chain compared to the other food supply chain actors, resulting in farmers bearing the brunt of unfair contractual agreements that lean towards benefiting retailers the most and farmers the least. Our suggestions for moving towards contractual fairness in the horticultural supply chain to support British farmers concern policy around food edibility. The path towards greater food security lies with redefining what edibility is not just by retailer standards (which has continued to be the norm in the horticultural supply chain), but by also consulting farmers and farmer organisations. Addressing power imbalances in the food supply chain not only addresses the contractual unfairness that horticultural farmers face, but also creates more resilient food supply chains that are shock-proofed against episodic crises common to food supply chains.Background: Power politics in the horticultural supply chain
Evidence suggests that the power dynamics in the horticultural supply chain is skewed in favour of retailers. A symptom of this is farmers bearing the brunt of unreliable climatic conditions, production shortages, lower profitability, and rising operational costs. Strict retailer contracts for fruit and vegetable quantity and quality leads to the waste of edible horticultural raw materials (fruit and vegetables) at farm-gate. These retailer contracts are largely based on the retailers’ profit projections rather than whether the horticultural food products are edible or not. Not only does this reduce food availability for consumers but it also impacts producers profitability. The horticultural produce that is rejected by retailers is diverted to animal feed or even left unharvested. This is a sub-optimal use of potentially edible horticultural produce that could have been used for human consumption. The Food Waste Management Hierarchy by WRAP proposes to maximise food availability for human consumption. However, with retailers withholding structural power and influence in the horticultural supply chain implies that marketability and attractiveness become the prime denominators for all supply chain decisions. In times of food crises, such as low production output, high cost of labour and agricultural resources and unreliable weather conditions, can significantly impact horticultural food supplies. This coupled with unfair supply chain practices can negatively impact fresh produce crop farmers. Taking into consideration the issues of shortages in fresh produce and contractual unfairness British farmers face in the horticultural food supply chain, our recommendation is centred around edibility.
1. Overcoming contractual unfairness for British farmers by redefining edibility
As retailers are key decision makers controlling what foods are available to consumers, researchers now confirm that these decisions have socialised consumers to prefer to buy fruit and vegetables that fit the aesthetic appearance. The systemic elimination of horticultural food products from the food supply chain that fail to meet this aesthetic criterion has subsequently framed consumer edibility perceptions. This implies that how the edibility of food is understood and measured is of critical importance to the functioning of an efficient fresh produce supply chain.
The fresh food supply chain provides food to the UK to fulfil retailer and consumer demand. If this results in waste where food is not purchased or not eaten, then the supply chain is not fulfilling its purpose. Further understanding of the edibility of horticultural products can benefit fresh produce supply chain actors in increasing the efficiency of what produce is and is not transported, and how it is managed in order to ensure that any aspects that may diminish edibility are avoided. Our insights arose from a recent study concerning how edibility is understood by an academic panel of experts in tackling the problem of food waste (data available on request). Extending our findings from our ongoing edibility research, we suggest that resilient supply chains are built through minimising waste by creating revenue generating farm-to-fork opportunities for farmers through fairer contractual agreements.
2. Edibility implications and marketability challenges and opportunities for horticultural products in the fresh food supply chain
Edibility can be defined by whether food could have been eaten by the consumer. However, there are socio-economic and cultural factors that differentiate what can be understood as edible. Broccoli stalks for example remain part of the product that is sold to consumers, yet consumers often see this as an inedible part of the product. Likewise, retailers may choose to not sell horticultural products that fail to meet the aesthetic standard on the premise of lack of customer demand for produce that do not look ‘normal’, projecting lower sales and profit margins. Although, research now shows that consumers are willing to buy suboptimal appearing foods at discounted prices. The example of the success of the French supermarket Intermarche’s Inglorious Fruit and Veg campaign is a real-world testament to consumers’ willingness to accept horticultural foodstuffs that do not meet the aesthetic norm. Allowing shelf space for visually suboptimal but perfectly edible suboptimal produce provides farmers the opportunity to sell a significant proportion of previously deemed unsaleable produce by subverting appearance standards that are not based on actual edibility. This also makes provision for additional horticultural supplies, increasing food availability. Therefore, lowering/dismissing appearance standards that have little to do with quality or edibility presents simpler contractual agreements for food producers that focus on maximising edible horticultural food availability.
Additionally, contractual inflexibility around supply quantities can be detrimental to horticultural produce growers profitability. Unreliable climatic conditions affect horticultural crop outputs. Retailers execute their power by rejecting horticultural produce that fall short or exceed supply quantities. This is not only wasteful, but is also expensive for the farmer whose entire crop output is deemed unsaleable, and is as a result diverted to sub-optimal use of horticultural produce for non-human consumption. Increasing food availability by not being bound to contractual quantities can help reduce the inequalities that relate to the consequences of produce rejection. Further, more nuanced, understandings of edibility therefore can be an important tool to aid British farmers within horticultural food supply chain.
The degree of edibility of food items decreases over time meaning that maximum shelf life is required when a product reaches retail environment. This means that the edibility of the product should reach its peak at this stocking point to ensure a sale. Consumers can also be picky in terms of what products are purchased, such as looking for signs that a product’s edibility may have diminished. Product date labels serve as anchors for consumers to decipher edibility, however retailers in the UK have eliminated the use of date labels on some horticultural products. The campaign group Love Food Hate Waste claims that removing labels increases consumer acceptance of horticultural products well past their technical ‘best-before’ date. This demonstrates that retailers can adopt retailing practices that focusses on waste reduction strategies rather than purely produce aesthetics. Additionally, in the absence of labels, unesthetic produce could be sold loose and potentially at a lower discount benefiting both the retailer and the producer.
In considering edibility across a number of different stages across both the fresh produce supply chain as well as the degradation of the produce itself, the wastage of food can be minimised. This can inform how produce is best managed in the supply chain based on consumers risk assessment. For example, certain soft fruit and vegetables that easily bruise, such as bananas, berries, and tomatoes, have implications for how they are transported and managed in the supply chain. These logistical decisions are governed by how the customer, the end consumer of horticultural products, constructs edibility. Here innovative solutions around repurposing less appealing produce into ready-to-eat meals can help bypass feelings of disgust towards produce that are bruised and appear less fresh. For example, supermarkets in the global south use unsold fruit and vegetables to make ready-to-eat salads, soups, and curries that are sold in-store as a part of meal deals. Whilst these solutions outline retailer-driven initiatives, solutions further upwards in the supply chain could facilitate considerable reductions in transportation costs.
Whilst the edibility of food in a supply chain may be based upon technical aspects, consumer’s understanding of edibility is instead framed around social and cultural aspects. This includes expectations of the look, smell, texture and taste of food, as well as how it might be employed in a recipe. This can create competing logics, i.e parts of a fruit or vegetable that are critical for its logistical journey, but may detract from its sale. Value added or upcycled foods that transform foods that may have diminished edibility to new products are an expanding product category. This could be an important outlet for any fresh horticultural produce that may have a suboptimal edibility due to unforeseen challenges in the operation of the supply chain. Value addition and upcycling not only minimises waste at farm-gate, but also ensures that the grower gets the most value out of the horticultural crop outputs, thus maximising return on investment for farmers.
Consumers often purchase fruit and vegetables but do not use the whole of the product, for example peel of limes, lemons and kiwi’s, as well as the stalks of broccoli. Retailers can use their structural power to inform, educate, and persuade consumers to use such perceived inedible parts of produce. Further, labels can be used as a nudge at the point of consumption prompting consumers to save, repurpose, use, or eat these perceived inedible parts of food. It seems inefficient for the fresh produce supply chain to be supporting the transportation and processing of such produce when it is likely to not be consumed.
3. Conclusion: Enhancing edibility as an opportunity for supply chain actors
In conclusion, our suggestions for contractual fairness outlines edibility solutions that encourage waste minimisation along the horticultural food supply chain and greater food availability. Critiques of the food system have argued that food supply chain actors are not interested in whether their products are consumed and in fact are gaining from the wasteful habits of consumers. It is currently unclear how much profit is made from fresh produce that is harvested, packaged and transported but never meets its primary goal being human consumption. This is complicated by the fact that retail environments are often presented as plentiful (i.e. full shelves) that can drive over forecasting and therefore over production, presenting greater demands on British horticultural producers. Further to this, retailers are often risk averse meaning that what is edible may not always be saleable. Some of the solutions presented in this response has been actioned to a limited degree. However, retailers have claimed that in some cases it is not financially viable to discount suboptimal fruit and vegetables, therefore meaning that a greater proportion of food may not be eaten and ultimately wasted. Here, packaging innovation, labelling schemes, nudging strategies at the point-of-sale, and repurposing or upcycling suboptimal ingredients into ready-to-eat meals can help create a resilient horticultural food system that maximises the benefits of all actors. Whilst these solutions are yet to be applied to the existing food systems in the UK, the future of food looks promising when the focus of addressing contractual inequalities can be addressed through waste minimisation strategies for the horticultural food supply chain.
| Period | 2024 → … |
|---|---|
| Work for | Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs , United Kingdom |