A Quantitative and Qualitative Study of Food Loss in Glasshouse-Grown Tomatoes

Abstract

Reducing food loss and waste (FLW) is one strategy to limit the environmental impact of the food supply chain. Australian data suggest that primary production accounts for 31% of national FLW, but there are no comparable data in New Zealand. This study aimed to measure food loss and explore food loss drivers for one of New Zealand’s largest tomato growers by weighing and visually assessing tomato losses at the glasshouse, packhouse and sales warehouse. Qualitative interviews were also held with the grower (n = 3), employees (n = 10), and key industry stakeholders (n = 8). Total food loss for this greenhouse tomato grower was 16.9% of marketed yield, consisting of 13.9% unharvested tomatoes, 2.8% rejected at the glasshouse and 0.3% rejected at the packhouse. The grower’s tomato loss predominantly resulted from commercial factors such as market price, competitor activity and supply and demand. Similar issues were recognized throughout the New Zealand horticulture sector. Commercial factors, in particular, are challenging to address, and collaboration throughout the supply chain will be required to help growers reduce food losses.

A critical review of on-farm food loss and waste: future research and policy recommendations

“…To collect primary data, on-farm researchers employ a mix of social science methods, such as interviews or surveys to obtain farmer estimates, supplemented with sampling in-field (Beausang et al ., 2017; Kitinoja et al ., 2018; McCosker, 2020; Thorsen et al ., 2021). A recurring challenge for researchers approaching the topic of on-farm FLW is the misunderstanding or disagreement of terms and definitions used when corresponding with farmers and relevant stakeholders.…”

“…Economic drivers contributing to FLW on-farm can be distilled into three main considerations: the monetary value of the waste (Bonadonna et al ., 2018); the overall costs of disposal or prevention of operational costs (Janousek et al ., 2018; Thorsen et al ., 2021); and the economic penalties of imperfect food from upstream stakeholders (Gillman et al ., 2019). Interestingly, while economic benefits are cited by farmers when asked about their options in valorizing waste, the level of farmer concern about economic consequences of generating FLW is varied.…”

A critical review on food loss and waste quantification approaches: Is there a need to develop alternatives beyond the currently widespread pathways?

“…Concerning food loss generation, which includes agricultural production, post-harvest and processing and packaging, the loss of animal and plant fractions that are non-edible or not originally intended to be used for direct human consumption, are not being computed as FLW, despite the associated implications in terms of food security and nutrition, as well as related environmental impacts (FAO, 2019). In addition, other FLW issues that are not being considered in statistics are the removal of food to maintain market prices (Thorsen et al, 2022), overproduction to ensure the sales required by the industry (Herzberg et al, 2022), losses due to excessively strict hygienic and sanitary regulations (Gascón et al, 2021), food removed due to the damage caused by endemic and recently emerging plant diseases and certain pests (Ristaino et al, 2021), or food loss generation as a response of not meeting the standardized size, shape or visual appearance that demand (Van Giesen and Hooge, 2019). Hence, it appears as if the FAO definition (2011) of FLW quantification is prone to a series of subjective methodological interpretations that could lead to its over-or underestimation.…”

“…In fact, due to the low prices of food products, agricultural producers have recurrently encountered problems to collect crops, redirecting their unsold or surplus products for secondary products such as juices or sauces (with much lower price). In some cases, they are even forced to destroy the products to maintain competitive prices (Thorsen et al, 2022). Moreover, a study by Fernández-Zamudio et al (2020) underlined that there are important causes of FLW generation related to commercial criteria, in which agricultural producers often feel powerless and cannot sell the so-called "ugly food".…”

Effect of combining UV‐C irradiation and vacuum sealing on the shelf life of fresh strawberries and tomatoes

“…In Australia, yearly tomato crop losses were estimated to be between 27% and 36% (Løvdal et al, 2019). Similarly, in-field food loss statistics for tomatoes in Florida showed an average loss of 40% of the crop (Thorsen et al, 2021). On the other hand, fresh strawberries are one of the most popular fruits in the world and are in great demand due to their flavor, high nutritional content, and range of health advantages, including anti-inflammatory, anticancer, and antioxidant properties (Shahbazi et al, 2021).…”