Food loss and food waste are major issues plaguing the agricultural industry worldwide. According to the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), one-third of all food produced domestically goes uneaten due to loss or waste. On June 12, the Biden-Harris administration released the National Strategy for Reducing Food Loss and Waste and Recycling Organics. This strategy provides tangible goals for retailers, producers, and regulatory agencies to work toward the United Nations Sustainable Development Goal 12.
In understanding the Biden-Harris administration’s National Strategy, it is essential to recognize the distinction between food loss and food waste. These terms are often used interchangeably. However, they categorize distinctly unique shortfalls in food efficiency.
The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations defines food loss as “the decrease in the quantity or quality of food resulting from decisions and actions by food suppliers in the chain, excluding retailers, food service providers, and consumers.” Food waste is “the decrease in the quantity or quality of food resulting from decisions and actions by retailers, food service providers, and consumers.”
Essentially, food loss is the discardment of food before the product reaches retail shelves.
Several factors contribute to the loss of produce before it reaches the shelves. Storage issues, poor refrigeration, improper handling, and prolonged transportation systemically contribute to food loss. However, other factors such as poor market conditions, high labor costs, and imposed cosmetic standards may also result in producers wasting several billion pounds of food prematurely each year.
The cosmetic standards imposed on producers are a major, unnecessary contributor to food loss. A grading system exists in which a product is evaluated based on color, size, and shape. Certain retailers will refuse to do business with producers if a high percentage of their produce fails to meet its cosmetic standards. Even when retailers do not impose stringent cosmetic standards on producers, they struggle to offload their products due to innate consumer cosmetic preferences.
Throughout the harvest and production process, produce goes through several stages, during which bruises, blemishes, and sun exposure can impact the cosmetic quality. Conveyor belts are often used to clean and package produce, which leads to significant bruising. This bruising is a natural byproduct of an industrialized harvest process; harvesting and producing large quantities of produce without it is nearly impossible.
The large factory-style harvest methods of the twenty-first century only exacerbate this reality. This makes the grading scale imposed upon farmers incredibly wasteful. Valuable produce is thrown out before it is even presented to consumers merely because of cosmetic imperfections.
The cosmetic grading system is not an arbitrary scale implemented by retailers to evaluate farmers’ output. Instead, it is a byproduct of consumer preferences. Retailers understand that consumers tend to avoid bruised and blemished produce and have subsequently implemented systems to cater to consumers. After all, who goes to the grocery store and picks out the bruised apple to take home?
Consumers’ avoidance of bruised produce intuitively makes sense. Brown can reasonably be associated with signs of spoilage or rot. However, bruising and blemishing are perfectly safe cosmetic imperfections that result from oxygen exposure and impact. Oxygenated or bruised produce also maintains an almost identical taste to their cosmetically sound counterparts. Despite this, blemishes and bruises result in the waste of delicious produce, no matter how superficial the cosmetic imperfections are.
The issue of food loss as a byproduct of consumer cosmetic preferences contributes to significant amounts of avoidable waste. As 133 billion pounds of food waste is attributed to the United States every year, and around 20 billion pounds of waste is due to cosmetic imperfection, much of the total loss is entirely avoidable.
Despite this, the Biden-Harris administration failed to address this issue in their recent strategy for combating food waste. However, their strategy is a step in the right direction, investing over $200 million to halve the total national food waste by 2030. In addition, the administration has implemented measures to reduce methane emissions and address the significant amount of food in landfills. According to the strategy released, food is the most common entity in American landfills. The administration has also invested $15 million in sustainable agriculture research and education.
These implementations are necessary: investing in agricultural reform to curb waste is long overdue. However, they fail to address what seems to be the most straightforward solution to food loss—cosmetic imperfections. Despite the 42-page strategy outlining everything from soil quality to environmental equity, no mention is made of food loss due to retail grade scales or consumer preferences.
Addressing the issue of food loss due to cosmetic imperfections is no small feat. It necessitates a change in consumer behavior, something notoriously difficult to accomplish. Retailers face no pressure to alter their grade scales, because consumers are the driving force behind this customary market practice.
The most promising and cost-effective method to address this issue exists in governmental consumer education. This is similar to “The Real Cost” campaign launched by the Environmental Protection Agency in 2014 to educate consumers on the dangers of tobacco consumption. The Biden-Harris administration could have diverted funding to create an ad campaign that educates consumers on food loss. Even a simple ad that illustrates food as safe and delicious despite any bumps, bruises, or misshaped cosmetic attributes could have had profound effects on consumer attitudes towards produce.
Without any initiative from the Biden-Harris administration, however, consumers are left to their behaviors unabated. Non-profit organizations such as ReFED, Copia, and Rethink Food Waste NY have launched campaigns to curb wasteful behavior in the general public. But none of these campaigns address the staggering loss resulting from insignificant cosmetic issues—indeed, 30-40% of the national food supply ends up in landfills every year. That needs to change.
Without the backing of federal institutions, the public must address this issue internally. Steps need to be taken to educate consumers on the harmful effects of a strict preference for perfect produce, and individuals must become comfortable with the consumption of bruised or lumpy food. After all, imperfect food is a natural occurrence. Variations, bumps, and bruises are bound to occur naturally or from harvesting. It is something consumers have to become okay with and needs to be addressed. The sheer volume of waste is avoidable, and it is time measures are taken to start avoiding it.
***
This article was edited by Herman Singh and Katherine Hohman.
