Wayne Roberts, a Toronto journalist and occasional farmer has written a fascinating article in the current issue of Canadian publication NOW on how glossy magazines instill a desire for perfect looking produce. This causes unrealistic expecatations, and ultimately, waste.
…most of the food we toss, perhaps one-fifth of the harvest, is wasted simply because it disappoints visual expectations of proper size, shape, style, colour and absolute perfection. It must have no holes, no blotches, no signs of wear and tear and, above all, no suggestion that it came from the ground, which is dirty.
In drawing his conclusion, Roberts makes an interesting analogy:
The glamorous pics are especially problematic, because their messageis to the subconscious. Everyone knows how fashion photographers and their set designers and airbrushers cause bodily harm by distorting the image of women, but few think about how the same people cause similar problems with their framing of food.
While I agree with Roberts’ point, some of the blame lies elsewhere. With consumers. Grocery stores weed out all imperfect products on our behalf because they know most of us won’t buy them. And many of us throw away food in our homes at the first sign of spoilage instead of cutting away that bad spot.
As for magazines, it would be nice to see a grittier, more realistic aesthetic–especially from publications that celebrate all things agrarian. But I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting for pictures of blemished fruit and vegetables anymore than I’d expect NOW not to publish beautiful food shots like this one.
So what can be done? Ask your retailer to feature a discount rack for imperfect produce and day-old bread. Don’t jump the gun at the first sign of mold–that’s why they invented paring knives. And Roberts’ includes two useful suggestions toward the end of the article:
One way to deal with this waste is to have lots of volunteers who are paid in small potatoes and holey spinach. Another way is to set up on-farm catering operations that specialize in casseroles, the ultimate post-harvest handling method, ideal for masquerading holes and off-sizes.
3 Comments
While I agree with all of this in principle, another section of blame also lies with the sellers of products. Yes, they weed out imperfect items because consumers will not buy them, but some consumers, like myself, might be willing to purchase less-than-perfect produce if it were priced accordingly. I as a consumer with limited resources am unwilling to pay the same price for a bag of bruised or partially crushed peaches as I would for perfect peaches because the quality is less. This goes even more so for fruit that is partially spoiled. If I purchase fruit or vegetables and after getting them home some get a little moldy, I have no problem cutting off the spoiled portion and eating the rest, but I’m not interested in lining the pockets of the purveyor for food I can only eat a portion of. There should be some cooperation between consumers and sellers on this front. Why not have an imperfect fruit bin along with the other less-than-ideal products that are often put on clearance? Why can I buy a can with the label half missing at a discount but not a bruised apple?
The answer, Rachel, is blowing in the wind…
It’s a great question. Some supermarkets do, in fact, have discount produce racks. Yet other stores have told me that their brand is so focused on freshness, they don’t want to have anything ‘not fresh’ in the store. So a reduced produce area would give shoppers the wrong message.
I think this is silly, but that’s how some stores think. In my mind, having a half-price area would reinforce the message that anything in the regular produce racks are as fresh as can be.
The market on the corner wraps bruised and ripe fruits and veggies for $.49. Sometimes I’ll get a package with a tomato or two, banana’s, necterines, a zucchini….ya never know what’s your gonna get…