The products affected by the climate will stay here. This is what consumers need to accept it

The economic cost of food waste in Australia is stunning. His estimated $ 36.6 billion is lost to the economy each year. A significant part of our fresh products is never even in stores, rejected At the gate of the farm for cosmetic reasons such as its appearance, size or mature.

We have long known about this problem, which caused the “ugly” food movement. Once rejected products were renamed as “winky” in Great Britain, “Inglorious” in France, “naturally imperfect” in Canada or a “strange group” in Australia.

Although the existence of these campaigns is commendable, there is another earnest marketing challenge, if we want to reduce food waste – acceptance of products affected by climate.

In general, this refers to the production affected by extreme or moderate weather events. Suski are an example of such climatic events that are expected more intense and frequent As a result of global climate change.

The products affected by the climate resembles “ugly” food, because it is often smaller, distorted or has surface imperfections.

But unlike “ugly food”, the taste and consistency of products affected by climate can be completely different.

Under The effects of droughtApples can become sweeter and more detailed, chillies hotter and someone else’s onion. In the case of soft or moderate drought, such products are Still edible.

Our last tests indicates uncomfortable truths. Many consumers prefer to completely avoid products affected by climate. And when the price is a factor, they will not choose it without a discount.

But our research also offers suggestions on how to encourage purchasing such products-in this, marketing messages, which emphasize the “resistance” of products affected by climate.

Our research

We conducted two experiments with a cautious choice with consumers who buy fresh fruit and vegetables. One sample was pulled out of Australian students, and the other of the members of the wider Australian population.

Participants were shown to eight different Apple options simulating the shopping environment, which were described with a number of different attributes, including firmness, sweets, appearance and size.

Apples were also marked with the price and information about whether they were sold on the supermarket or farmers market. All apples affected by the climate were presented with the message “resistance”: “Resilient Apple has been drought”.

We tried to explore how the “organdic” properties of products-a good product in which it affects our different senses-also the level of empathy towards farmers affects the readiness of consumers to choose products affected by the climate and how much they paid for it.

Preference for perfection

We found when apples, size and aesthetics of apples were crucial, and empathy towards farmers was low, consumers usually avoid products affected by climate. Instead, they chose intact alternatives at higher prices (such an effect was not observed for sweets).

This discovery may not be a surprise, but it is still a cause for concern. If farmers cannot change the purpose of products affected by the climate in the spread, jams, cocktails or animal feed, no supply chains can enter and may end in waste.

Previous campaigns for “ugly” fruits and vegetables may also not offer much support in this problem. These campaigns emphasize the unchanged taste and texture of the products. Marketing products affected by climate require a different approach.

Otherwise we expect a discount

When the price was crucial for consumers, they chose products affected by the climate, regardless of their level of empathy against farmers. But they willingly paid reduced prices for it.

This may seem a more positive result. But the expectations of consumers that the products affected by the climate will always be discounted can adversely limit farmers with lower profits and reduce its value as a resource of the user.

The power of “resistance” messages

Importantly, we found when the “resistance” message resonates with consumers, they were more likely to consider apples affected by the climate. It was true, even when their empathy towards farmers was low.

This suggests that when empathy fails, the apply of marketing messages that emphasize “immunity” can be another path that is worth exploring.

Our research team is now investigating what types of “resistance” messages can encourage the purchase of products affected by the climate.

Australians have been conditioned for many years to expect only aesthetic fruits and vegetables.

Given Extreme weather events It is unlikely that they become rarer in the future, the products affected by the climate will probably remain here. If we want consumers to accept it, we must conduct uncomfortable conversations about its other taste and texture and think about what we are ready to accept.