Information Framing Makes Visually Suboptimal Potatoes more Appealing

Large quantities of potatoes are rejected due to visual defects. For this reason, Agroscope researchers investigated how consumers can be motivated to purchase visually suboptimal potatoes.

Major losses, hereafter referred to as ‘food waste’, occur along the potato value chain. So-called ‘suboptimal products’, which are either close to or have exceeded their best-before date, or which deviate visually or sensorially from the defined optimum, constitute a highly specific source of food waste. For Switzerland, it was estimated that only 60% off all harvested potatoes actually reached consumers or restaurants. An online survey was conducted in spring 2024 by Agroscope to determine whether suboptimal products could nonetheless be marketed to consumers.

The potato experiment

A total of 481 individuals, 51.1% of them women, took part in the online survey in German-speaking Switzerland. This article focuses specifically on one part of the survey: the potato experiment. In it, online participants were asked to choose between two different potato options. They also had the option of stating that they would choose neither of the two potatoes. The participants were told to imagine that they had gone somewhere (farm shop vs. supermarket) to purchase potatoes. They could then choose between two different products: an optimal potato A, and a suboptimal potato B. The potatoes differed only in terms of size and appearance. Potatoes A were described in the food-waste information as commercially available potatoes, whilst potatoes B were described as usually being rejected, despite the fact that they were ideally suited to cooking and their use would help prevent food waste.

Choosing the suboptimal potatoes

A chi-squared test revealed that the purchase setting and food-waste information-framing had an effect on the choice of potato. There was a slight tendency for participants to choose the optimal potatoes A more frequently in the farm shop than in the supermarket (75% vs. 71% respectively in the control group, and 59% vs. 54% respectively with food-waste information). Given its very small size, this difference would need to be investigated in greater detail in future studies. It should also be kept in mind that there may be a difference between the stated preferences of consumers and their actual behaviour.

Food-waste messages resulted in an increase in participants’ tendency to choose the suboptimal potato B (rising from 25% to 41% in the farm shop and from 29% to 46% in the supermarket). Participants were asked to justify their choice of potato using free-text responses. The choice of optimal potato A was most often justified on grounds of appearance and price. Where suboptimal potato B was chosen, this was primarily owing to the desire to reduce food waste, or due to the fact that the potato was considered as still edible.