The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly: Food Packaging and Consumers

Abstract

Food waste is a significant environmental, economic, and social issue. In many cases, packaging protects food and prolongs its shelf life, reducing the overall environmental impact by reducing food waste. This research focuses on consumer perceptions of the role of packaging and on-pack labelling in reducing household food waste. The following research questions provided the framework for the study: (1) could packaging play a role in decreasing food waste; (2) what are labelling and packaging designs’ impacts on consumer decision-making about food waste? This research draws on two qualitative studies. Study One focuses on journey mapping—following food waste throughout the consumer’s engagement with food ‘journey’ from planning to disposal. Study Two comprises a series of in-depth interviews in consumers’ homes focusing on how consumers engage with food packaging and food waste. Results indicate that there are at least two streams of consumer perceptions to consider when determining the relationship between food packaging and reducing food waste: the first is how practically useful packaging is for consumer needs; the second is consumers’ perceptions about food packaging itself. There are tensions and trade-offs between these two sets of considerations. The results of the studies show consumers are unlikely to consider food packaging or reducing food waste as a primary motivation in their food purchasing decisions. The studies also show reducing packaging, including plastic packaging, is seen as more important than reducing food waste. Our results also highlight important elements to consider when designing food packaging. These results suggest that a fundamental review is needed for many aspects of packaging and storage information and that this review should account for consumers’ information needs at different points: purchase, storage, during consumption, and between instances of consumption. Furthermore, our results suggest packaging designs that provide clear information and instructions for consumers to reduce food waste are needed.

1. Introduction

Food waste is a significant environmental, economic, and social issue [1]. The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation (UNFAO) estimates that each year about one-third of all food produced for human consumption in the world is lost or wasted [2]. Reducing food waste is a way to lower production costs, increase the efficiency of the food system, improve food security and nutrition, and contribute to the food system’s environmental sustainability [2]. Addressing food waste, therefore, has a range of positive implications for global society and the biosphere.

Food loss and waste (FLW) occurs along the entire food supply chain (see Figure 1). There are multiple definitions of FLW [3]. Definitions vary on the inclusion of various stages of the food supply chain (and whether a distinction is made between food loss and food waste), which end-of-life options are considered as FLW, and the inclusion or exclusion of inedible parts of the food [4]. There is also a differentiation between the loss of quantity and the loss of quality when determining the boundaries of what constitutes FLW [2]. Most definitions consider ‘food’ to mean foodstuffs intended for human consumption. While we acknowledge that there are other definitions, for the purposes of this project, our definition of FLW is limited to food intended for human consumption that is wasted by consumers in the last stages of the food supply chain (see Figure 1).

Globally, the volume of edible food waste is estimated to be 1.3 billion tonnes, but 13.8% of food produced is wasted at the upstream stages of the food supply chain before the retail and consumer stages [2]. Food waste at the consumer stages is often caused by poor purchasing habits, confusion over labels, excess buying, and poor storage [5].

Packaging is often viewed as having a negative impact on the environment [6]. Packaging is leftover once the product is consumed, and the customer has to dispose of it, either in the bin or through recycling [7]. However, in many cases packaging protects food and prolongs its shelf life, reducing the overall environmental impact of a product by reducing food waste [8]. Food packaging can help reduce household food waste by extending the shelf life of food products via innovative packaging design [9], being available in numerous sizes for different sized households [10], communicating on-pack the best way to use and store food items [11], assisting households to better manage their food using date labels, and slowing the degradation of minimally processed vegetables (Porat et al., 2018). Consumers’ understanding, perception, and use of packaging also plays a role in household food waste generation [3]. Households’ negative perceptions of packaging and a lack of understanding of its purpose is likely to contribute to less-than-ideal packaging use. There is also a growing body of literature that identifies and examines food packaging functions and technologies that are specifically designed to reduce food waste [3,12,13].

This study focuses on consumer perceptions of the role of packaging and on-pack labelling in reducing household food waste. The following research questions provided the framework for the study:

• Could packaging play a role in decreasing food waste, and if so, how much, and what sort?
• What are labelling and packaging design’s impacts on consumer decision-making about food waste?

The results of two qualitative studies collecting primary data from consumers are subsequently presented and discussed. While this study is limited to Australian urban locations, the global implications for food packaging design are also considered.

2. Background

While there is a growing body of literature about the capacity for packaging to help reduce food waste, there is only limited research about consumer perceptions or acceptance of this technology [3], although there is a growing interest in this type of research (see for example [14]). Similarly, research that explicitly investigates the relationship between food waste and packaging functions in different types of households and markets is limited [13].

2.1. Packaging Perceptions

Recent research has found that consumers recognise the benefits of packaging to keep food fresher, hygienic, safe, clean, and protected from damage [15]. However, they are also concerned about the environmental impact of packaging— especially plastic packaging—after it has been discarded. While consumers in a study by the Industry Council for Packaging and the Environment (INCPEN) and Waste and Resources Action Programme (WRAP) recognised the capacity for packaging to reduce food waste, most (59%) believed that keeping food in its original packaging means it would go off quicker [15].

Research about consumer awareness of, and trust in, packaging technologies designed to reduce food waste, while limited, also suggests that consumer perceptions of packaging are inaccurate. For instance, in Poland, consumers had a low level of knowledge about emerging food packaging technologies, although more than half (53%) had come across active and intelligent packaging before [16]. Otto, Strenger, Maier-Nöth and Schmid [14] suggest consumers judge environmental sustainability by the ‘naturalness’ of the packaging, indicating that high-tech solutions are yet to be embraced by consumers. Another study showed that consumers misunderstood how to read or use these sorts of packaging technologies and that trust in these technologies was low [17]. These studies suggest a need for consumer education about packaging technologies [16,18,19], as well as a need to better understand how consumers perceive and engage with existing packaging technologies.

2.2. Labelling and On-Pack Information

Labelling and on-pack information, including date labels, can help consumers to better manage their food [20] and reduce food waste by communicating the best way to use and store food items [11]. Most existing research on food labelling and consumer food waste has focused on the role of date labelling for consumer decision-making and practices that lead to increased or reduced food waste [18]. Date and storage information on-pack has an indirect impact on a consumer’s decision to eat or discard food [21]. On-pack date labelling has also been found to contribute to consumer food waste [22]. For instance, research has suggested that date labelling on milk may lead to consumers discarding milk that is putatively past its consumption date but that would otherwise be considered acceptable for consumption if consumers were relying only on their sensory assessment [23].

Consumers are also confused by the different types of date labels [24,25,26,27] and have different ideas about the meaning of different date labels [28]. Date labels that suggest food safety concerns lead to a greater amount of FLW [29]. Perceptions of, and behaviour around, different types of date labels also depend on the food product—consumers were less likely to consume eggs after their ‘best if used by’ date, but more likely to consume deli meat and spaghetti sauce labelled similarly [30].

Several alternatives have been suggested to positively impact or reduce food waste. These include standardising date labelling—both in terms of text and graphics [31] or removing certain types of date labels altogether [32]. In the UK, food labelling guidance has recommended providing clear storage advice on-pack, supported by symbols or graphics where possible [31]. Others have suggested that technologies, such as smart packaging, be incorporated into conventional packaging design, rather than replacing conventional date labelling with these technological innovations [22]. Adopting a more holistic lens in understanding how consumers use date labels as part of their broader food practices [22,33], and encouraging the translation of theoretical knowledge in the date labelling and food waste literature into designs that can be implemented by industry [22], have also been recommended.

The objective of this research is to understand more clearly how consumer perceptions of packaging—including packaging technologies that are designed to reduce food waste—might impact the acceptance and use of that packaging, and to use these insights to help inform future food packaging design. This paper expands existing research by exploring how date and storage information in on-pack labelling and packaging could influence consumers’ decision-making about food waste. In line with suggestions for including descriptive text for different types of date labels, and graphic illustrations that communicate product shelf life and storage instructions [22], this paper explores visual design or communication elements that could enhance consumer decision-making about household food waste. Considering the sensory knowledge consumers use, and consistent with previous suggestions [22], the paper also offers guidance about integrating on-pack graphics or codes, which enable consumers to access more detailed information through their mobile devices into existing packing designs.

3. Materials and Methods

Two qualitative methods, journey mapping and in-depth interviews with consumers, were employed to collect primary data to address the research questions and aims.

3.1. Journey Mapping

Journey mapping is a rapid ethnography technique [34]. The technique was used to follow food and food packaging through the consumer purchasing journey from beginning to end, to understand the role of packaging in the food waste journey; how packaging is used, how consumers respond to packaging (changes, designs, styles, and types), and how consumers waste (or save) their food. As each consumer takes a different journey [35], journey mapping makes the ‘landscape visible’ to the researcher [36]. The repertoire of behaviours depends on the consumer and their behavioural eco-system [5].

As outlined in Figure 2, journey mapping begins with an understanding of consumer awareness and perspectives of food waste and packaging [35], then identifies factors consumers consider in the relationship between food waste and packaging. These include emotional, social [37], and technical [38] issues faced in understanding food and food consumption and its relationship with packaging. Barriers and benefits associated with using packaging as storage are also explored [39].

Underlying methods in the journey mapping process are associated with rapid ethnography [40,41]. They include direct observations, interviews, and photo elicitation, as well as self-reported behaviours and images associated with FLW in the household.

Participant recruitment of primary household food purchasers was undertaken via a market research agency panel. In total, 24 female and 13 male participants (n = 37), aged between 18 and 55 years, participated in the journey mapping project. Most participants (22) held university level qualifications, all participants identified as primary grocery purchasers in their households, and all were located in Melbourne, Australia.

Consumers were interviewed for at least 90 min about their attitudes and behaviours in relation to food packaging and waste according to their food waste journey. At times, this was supplemented with a deeper discussion about the entire food waste journey. To ensure depth of discussion, seven participants were interviewed about bakery products, seven about dairy products and eggs, seven about fresh fruit and vegetables, seven about meat and seafood, and ten about packaged and processed foods. These food groups—which were also used in the packaging information interviews—were adapted from an industry study where consumers identified these foods as the most wasted in their households [42]. Visual prompts for existing FLW designs and labelling were offered where the topics were not raised by the participant.

3.2. Pack Information Interview

In-depth interviews were used to explore consumers’ perceptions towards packaging and their interaction with, and use of, food labels and on-pack information. Packaging that consumers already interacted with, as well as examples of packaging that may address issues related to household food waste, informed these discussions. Participants were interviewed about on-pack information and packaging design for foods across five food categories: bakery, dairy and eggs, fresh fruit and vegetables, meat and seafood, and packaged and processed food. Interviews were conducted for at least 60 min, with participants at home, via a secure online meeting platform. To ensure depth of discussion, fourteen participants undertook interviews about bakery products, eleven about dairy and eggs, seven about fruit and vegetables, ten about meat and seafood, and eight about packaged and processed foods. Other food categories were often included according to participants’ interests in the discussions.

We contacted and recruited the participants using the database of the market research agency. We then applied our inclusion criteria to select participants who were representative of Australian population demographics for primary food purchasers in households. There were 33 female and 17 male participants aged between 18 and 65 years (n = 50), of which fourteen undertook interviews about bakery, eleven about dairy and eggs, seven about fruit and vegetables, ten about meat and seafood, and eight about packaged and processed foods. Participants’ ages ranged from 18 to 65, with the biggest group aged 25–39 (n = 18). The majority were from Melbourne, with ten from regional Australia and one from rural Australia. Most participants (32) held university level qualifications and all participants identified as primary grocery purchasers in their households.

3.3. Data Analysis

For analysis, we employed a coding framework developed using previous research as part of a wider research project [43]. The project is multi-disciplinary in nature, comprising the two data sets, and involves a reflexive and iterative analytical process where possible outcomes are unknown at the beginning of the project [41,44]. Coding frameworks enable researchers to explore data in-depth whilst simultaneously maintaining an effective and transparent audit trail, enhancing the rigour of the analytical processes [45]. Coding frameworks are suited to the analysis of multi-source and multi-disciplinary data because they enable different aspects of the phenomena under investigation to be captured [46]. Furthermore, the interconnected stages within a framework approach explicitly describe the processes that guide systematic analyses of data. Thus, a coding framework guides the researcher to mine the data to answer the research question transparently and without losing the depth and richness extant in the data [45]. Finally, a coding framework enables the transparency of researchers’ interpretations of participants’ experiences [46]. Given that there were multiple researchers involved from a variety of disciplinary backgrounds, interpretations of the meaning of the data were likely to be contentious, and the coding framework took significant background research to complete.

The data analysis process was based on a common set of principles: transcribing the interviews; immersing the researcher within the data to gain detailed insights of the phenomena being explored; developing a data coding system; linking codes or units of data to form overarching categories/themes [46]. Two analysts (T.P-L and S.L) undertook the majority of the initial coding and organising. Coding software NVivo was used to organise and analyse the data and to further develop the coding framework, as well as code data according to the evolving coding framework. The coding process started with research questions and research objectives [44]. The entire research team participated in the development of the coding framework. Codes and categories were based on the research questions, as well as previous research (blinded for peer review). Analysis started with close readings of a sample of a diverse group of transcripts to conceptualise the broad areas of inquiry [44]. Based on the research questions, codes and categories were developed by considering each line, phrase, or paragraph of the sample transcript to summarise participants’ ideas [46]. Subsequently, we applied a reflexive procedure to go back and forth across the data to identify key phrases using participants’ own words [45]. The repeated phrases were identified as codes and added to the framework. Categories were then developed from the codes. Initial thoughts began to develop into more formal ideas and formed the final coding framework [45]. Where there were disagreements as to meaning or categorisation, at least two members of the research team discussed these issues until a consensus was reached. The final coding framework is contained in Appendix A.

4. Results and Discussion

The results are organised into three sections — Good, Bad, and Ugly. The ‘Good’ section provides some understanding of design components of packaging that consumers perceive as useful, and which could be further developed to decrease household food waste. The ‘Bad’ section provides some understanding of design components that consumers perceive as a hinderance, either to their desired use of a product or to reduce food waste, and which need to be more carefully considered by packaging designers. Finally, the ‘Ugly’ section explores some of the tensions that arise in consumer perceptions of and their relationship with food packaging, especially as it relates reducing food waste. These categories were determined based on qualitative thematic analysis of the data.

4.1. Good

Food packaging is contentious, especially as it relates to plastic packaging. Most participants suggested they were anti-plastic and would prefer for food to be packaged in anything except plastic. While plastic packaging was seen as ‘bad’ in general, a few participants said they were ‘pro-packaging’ because it could reduce food waste. These few participants seemed to understand there was a relationship between the use of packaging and a reduction in household food waste. The reasons for being positive about packaging also included hygiene and food safety. Participants recognised the ability of packaging to keep food fresher, hygienic, safe, and clean. They also understood the role of packaging in protecting food from damage. This result is consistent with previous research by INCPEN and WRAP [15].

Food safety, including food hygiene and cleanliness, and wholesomeness was a reason many participants gave for using packaging. Plastic packaging can be useful in ensuring safety and extending the shelf life of produce. Participants suggested that packaging was helpful for ensuring food was not contaminated in the supply chain.

Well, just because we...particularly with COVID, it’s probably better to be more cautious with the object than not...You want to know that your food’s clean and it’s not been contaminated along the way. (Female, 36–45 years old, single, living alone in metropolitan Melbourne)

Additionally, participants reasoned that packaging was instrumental in maintaining food freshness and quality:

One [reason I am pro-packaging] is for freshness and two is the exposure to things in the air and that sort of thing. (Female, 46–55 years old, living with a family including older children at home in metropolitan Melbourne)

Participants also said that packaging was convenient because it meant they did not have to consider how much food to buy if it was pre-packaged. They also suggested that packaging was convenient because they did not have to personally bag and/or weigh the product and they could easily see the price they were paying for the product. Packaging is also part of their purchasing habits and socialisation; they are used to and expect food to be in packages.

I would say [I am] a pro-packaging person. They do have their merits too. The convenience is one side, you can grab things and you’re not having to think to yourself before putting it in a bag, so it does have its uses. (Female, 26–35 years old, family or single parent whose children have left home, living in metropolitan Melbourne)

Participants also noted that in addition to pricing information, packaging was useful for them in making choices about what to buy. Packaging provides information that is not otherwise available to them, especially when it comes to fresh food. Another important role for food packaging is that it often provides a container for convenient and safe transport and storage. Packaging also avoids the need for a myriad of containers in the home. Furthermore, the packaging that is provided is potentially better for food preservation and food safety than the containers that consumers have available:

Because it stores the food for you. I don’t know. I don’t want every fruit and veg to be packaged up. I like how they’re all singular. We’re not using plastic bags anymore, but I prefer items I buy to be in a package. I think I want the apples to be in a bag. (Female, 26–35 years old, married with children, living in metropolitan Melbourne)

I don’t want to have to get a container for every single item in my pantry. That wouldn’t be [convenient]...If I have to transfer it all myself that’d be time consuming. (Female, 26–35 years old, family with school-aged children at home, living in metropolitan Melbourne)

Some participants understood the potential for packaging to reduce food waste. This was largely because participants felt packaging extends the shelf life of food or makes it easier to store, as well as enhancing the quality of the produce by reducing contamination or maintaining flavour and appearance:

It definitely leads to better quality. There’s a reason that suppliers and manufacturers are packaging them. Often it might not necessarily be for quality, it might be for ease of handling and transport, that sort of thing. Wrapping the apples in plastic means you’re not getting bugs or dust and stuff in there along the supply chain. It undoubtedly leads to a better-quality product for the consumer. (Male, 36–45 years old, family with children under five, living in regional Australia)

One participant also suggested that packaging could provide information that could help reduce food waste by providing information for more uses for the food:

Well, I guess if the packaging, there’s room to write all that stuff on it or give a recipe or something like that, rather than just having to throw it out if you don’t. There’s not really that option. (Female, 46–55, family with older children at home, living in metropolitan Melbourne).

4.1.1. Ease of Understanding

Another aspect of packaging design put forward by participants was that of communication, including visual language in labelling, as well as the structure and nature of the packaging itself. This was initiated by a discussion about the relationships between the visual design elements of packaging and on-pack information, participants’ interactions with these design elements, and decisions made about the purchase, storage, and use of food.

Participants said they often consider different elements of on-pack information in relation to each other, as well as in relation to the likely use of the product in their household, depending on the size of the household, food preferences within the household, household schedule, and other factors. This is consistent with research such as that of Chu, Williams, Verghese, Wever and Glad [22] and Lyndhurst [33].

One of the elements of communication is the ability to see what is in the packaging in order to assess the food’s freshness and quality. Participants asked for a transparent plastic window on packaging that is otherwise opaque, such as paper packaging often used for bakery products:

...that’s almost a compromise between being able to see the muffins but also being environmentally friendly compared to the six packs that are just plastic trays. The supermarket needs people to see through and think ‘well, that looks tasty and fresh, I’ll buy that’. (Female, 25–34 years old, living in a house with one other adult in metropolitan Melbourne)

Other participants suggested that labelling should be clear and easy to understand. Some participants asked for packaging that provided information that could help with decision-making about the food, such as allergen and ingredient advice. The placement of the information on packaging was also an issue for the participants, with many comments on good practice in design:

It’s got the nutritional information there; it’s got the ingredients. It’s all in the one place. It’s all really easy to read. It’s got a good level of detail... I think probably key information should be on the back of the package in a really clear space that’s easy to read. (Female, 36–45 years old, single, and living alone in metropolitan Melbourne)

I think it’s laid out well. The fact that it uses good fonts [easy to read]. The nutritional information is clearly laid out, and it’s got different options as far as portion sizes. One of the things I do like about the nutritional information is the percentage of recommended daily intake. (Male, 36–45 years old, single, living in metropolitan Melbourne)

The overall size of labels and information was a consideration for participants, with many pointing out that the larger the size of labels, the more readily they can be used to inform the decision-making about purchases. As well as the size of labels, participants also raised issues such as colour combinations and simple designs to enable readability and likability.

It’s coloured, it’s clean, it’s simple. Yeah. I like this one. (Female 36–45 years old, single, and living alone in metropolitan Melbourne)

Participants put forward examples of clear date labelling that covered the information they wanted to see on packaging. They wanted clarity between best before and use by dates:

[I like] that it’s got a clear best before date. It’s really clear on the number of servings so it’s easy to work out whether I could reasonably use it all before the best before date. (Female 36–45 years old, single, living alone in metropolitan Melbourne)

Largely, consumers expressed confidence in their understanding of date labels, and when asked to define the terms ‘best before’ and ‘use by’ were able to provide accurate descriptions. This contrasts with existing research that suggests consumer confusion around date labelling is a cause of food waste [24,25,26,47].

4.1.2. Type of Information Communicated on Packaging

Some participants said they tend to look for particular kinds of information on-pack and were positive about the presence of this information. Many consumers said they looked for date labels, especially on perishable items, such as dairy, eggs, and meats. Previous research has also found that consumers both value and look for date labels on food packaging [48] and report using labels both in store and at home [33]. Participations also wanted information on nutrition and provenance:

...it’s probably more the things that may be bad or may not be good for me. So, looking at things like chocolates or processed foods, and looking at some of the contents of those. (Male, 25–35 years old, married or in a de facto relationship, living in metropolitan Melbourne)

I always look at, for example, palm oil and stuff. I always check where the palm oil’s from if I’m buying a product that contains it. (Female, 18–24 years old, married or in a de facto relationship, living in Metropolitan Melbourne)

Another consideration is that of serving size and portions. Firstly, consumers look for whether the packaging indicates an appropriate number of portions for their household size. Although they consider portioned packaging is a waste of packaging, they recognise the usefulness of having a clear packaged portion:

I think the actual portion themselves inside are also sealed in a bag, in a vacuum sealed bag individually, which seems like quite a waste as far as packaging goes to have this bag with a resealable portion to it...[But] it means that we generally have fish on hand in the freezer. It’s something we can stock sort of long term...These give me every confidence that they’re fine, they’re safe. (Male, 36–45 years old, family or single parent with children under five, living in regional Australia)

Additionally, participants said they often look for information about storage and portion size in relation to their storage options. For example, some participants mentioned they were unable to buy foods in a suitable serving size for their storage capacity:

...if you know you can put it in the freezer then you can actually portion up the food in advance and keep parts of it in the fridge and parts of it in the freezer. (Female, 26–35 years old, married or in a de facto relationship, living in metropolitan Melbourne)

Storage capacity and consumption issues were noted in relationship to shopping frequency. For instance, one consumer, who lives alone, said they often waste fresh milk because they buy a two-litre bottle, which was too much for them. However, a one litre bottle was not large enough, and the participant could not go to the shops frequently enough to maintain their milk supply if they bought the smaller bottle.

In terms of good examples of storage information on packaging, participants mentioned instances of how they might save food if they were provided the ‘right’ information.

I really like the food storage conditions are up front instead and that they’re very clear...I mean, the other stuff is useful and handy but the storage conditions, I think, are the best in terms of they’re quite up front so it helps keep it front of mind. You don’t need to read through a whole group of stuff to find it. (Female, 36–45 years old, single, and living alone in metropolitan Melbourne)

I do like the storage instructions... It would say, like, ‘Keep refrigerated’, ‘Open, consume within three days’, or something like that. They’re the things I remember. (Female, 18–24, married or de facto relationship, living in metropolitan Melbourne)

Being informed about what to do with the food once it is in the home was also helpful to the participants. For example, instructions about refrigeration of freezing:

This actually does say after you open it, it’s giving you within five days at room temperature or refrigerated, 15 days. Then it can be frozen up to 12 months. I find that actually very useful because they give you a few options there. Then if you want to separate them, it says to microwave them, so it tells you how to cook them and then how to store them. Once open, refrigerate within three days, and you can freeze it and use it in three months. So that’s good to see also, how long it lasts in the freezer as well because then there’s going to be less wastage if you don’t use it. (Female, 46–55 years old, living with a family that includes older children at home in metropolitan Melbourne)

An additional topic of interest to the participants was that of packaging design and materials. In previous reviews (Langley et al., 2020) and research (Brennan et al., 2021; Lockrey et al., 2020a; Lockrey et al., 2019), it is not clear whether consumers value or use storage information on food labels. This may be because such information is not widely available and there are no global standards for labelling that would permit in-depth research. However, the present study has found that many participants had positive perceptions of both packaging’s functions for, and information about, food storage.

Several participants mentioned their desire for resealable packaging, especially for bakery products, dairy products, and fresh produce, where the portion sold is often greater than the serving size used in the household:

If you have a resealable flap that does reseal and keep the goodness of the product, that’s a bonus...if you buy 10 tacos or 10 wraps in a bag and you’re having two a day, there’s a whole week of school and if you can just pull it out and seal it up, that’s nice easy, that’s functional. (Male, no age given, family or single parent with school aged children at home, living in regional Australia).

Resealable tabs and containers work quite well for us. It means I don’t have to pull out Gladwrap or another freezer bag and use more plastic packaging kind of thing or stick it in Tupperware. It still remains in the manufacturers’ packaging which should be the optimal storage solution for it. (Male, 36–45 years old, family or single parent with children under five, living in regional Australia).

The benefits of packaging were recognised by participants, including that it keeps food fresh, hygienic, safe, and clean. Participants also understood the role of packaging in protecting food from damage, and that if designed correctly, packaging can be used to store food without having to use any additional storage containers or plastic wrap. The capabilities of plastic packaging to ensure safety and extend shelf life of the product lie in the packaging’s design and on-pack communication. Packaging with customer-driven designs and features, such as resealable features and portioned divisions, were identified by participants as helpful because they enable consumers to take a portion while storing the remaining product for another day. Packaging that incorporates date labelling with clear text and colour was viewed as beneficial, as was clear information about the number of servings (portions) per pack. If specific storage instructions are included (such as ‘five days left on bench, 10 days in the fridge, three months in the freezer’), packaging can provide consumers with the opportunity to maintain and/or extend the shelf life of the product.

4.2. Bad

‘Bad’ packaging included packaging and labelling components that participants found unhelpful or confusing, or that they expressed negative feelings towards. Many participants were ‘anti-packaging’, and some could not believe there would be a link between packaging and reducing food waste. Others felt that packaging increased the likelihood of food waste. Consequently, households were unlikely to actively choose packaged products to decrease food waste. This is consistent with earlier studies that found consumers have negative perceptions of food packaging [15].

Overall, there was a distinct anti-packaging sentiment amongst participants. Participants were concerned about food safety, including contamination from chemicals, as well as the sustainability of packaging. Participants were more worried about the impact of plastic packaging on the environment than they were about food waste:

Because I’m concerned about the potential for chemicals and nasties to reach into food products. When I buy a food product from a market or a store that doesn’t let you bring your own packaging, I don’t know whether it’s just because they are having to buy it without the packaging to sell it to you. When I don’t buy it with the packaging it is better. It lasts longer. (Female, 36–45 years old, married or in a de facto relationship, living in metropolitan Melbourne)

I think I’m more concerned about the packaging waste, because even if...I have my own bedroom here, and I can collect up enough food wrappers, or soft drink cans, or this or that from just food alone within a few days. And I’m just thinking this is how much packaging I’ve thrown out just in my own bedroom. Then you have to add on other packaging from other food I’ve eaten. It’s just out of control...And plastic is a nightmare to recycle. (Female, 18–25 years old, living in a share house in metropolitan Melbourne)

A consistent theme across the participant interviews was the belief that packaging does not reduce food waste, combined with a belief that packaging is likely to increase food waste. A similar prevailing belief was that packaging does not permit the consumer to evaluate the quality of the product prior to purchase. Plastic was also blamed for the rapid degradation of the produce and participants felt that packaging did not extend shelf life or improve food quality:

Well, I think that the produce contained within, I’m thinking about specifically fruit and veggies here, it’s probably just masking inferior products, I think. If I want to buy an avocado, I want to check its firmness or ripeness, which I can’t do if it’s in packaging. So, I think that there’s a bit of smoke and mirrors going on as far as that’s concerned. (Male, 36–45 years old, single, living alone in metropolitan Melbourne)

You can buy a corn on the cob with the husk all on it, or you can buy corn that’s in the thing, cut off, and there’s still some husk, but it’s in a plastic thing. Then the ends of them are starting to go pink already when you buy them sort of thing. I guess in that example, then yes, the quality has deteriorated because of the packaging, so something like that. (Female, 46–55 years old, family with older children at home, living in metropolitan Melbourne)

Several participants had the perception that packaging—especially plastic packaging—makes food go off quicker than it would without packaging. One consumer said she felt that food packaged in plastic was more likely to have been ‘there sometime and it goes off quicker with plastic’ (Female, 36–45 years old, single, living alone in metropolitan Melbourne). Another participant compared contemporary packaging with that of previous generations:

…when they had basically paper packaging or cardboard packaging or metal packaging...Compared to today when everything’s in plastic. Plastic does cause a lot of food to deteriorate quicker. (Male, 56–65 years old, family with older children at home, living in metropolitan Melbourne).

Participants identified additional issues related to packaging and food waste. One concern was with labelling that was unclear or missing essential information. Furthermore, packaging of fresh produce, such as bread and eggs, did not provide any storage or hints about reducing food waste. For instance, one participant said food labelling on a particular bread label was ‘a bit vague’ other than listing ingredients (Female, 46–55 years old, family with older children at home, living in metropolitan Melbourne); another complained that the label for some canned beans ‘doesn’t have any nutritional information’ (Male, 36–45 years old, single person living alone in metropolitan Melbourne). Several participants said that baked goods and packaged and processed foods could have more storage instructions included on the label. Some participants said it was difficult to find or decipher date labelling, even when they were specifically looking for it. One participant suggested it would be helpful to have date labelling that stands out more:

Sometimes it can be hard to find the date on it...Maybe just make the label yellow or have it standardised or something. Maybe it would stand out a bit more if it were one colour. (Female, 46–55 years old, family with older children at home, living in metropolitan Melbourne)

While not directly related to food waste, participants were also confused about recycling logos on food packaging. They expressed annoyance at the fact that non-recyclable packaging often has the recycling logo on it. Furthermore, they suggested that recycling and disposing of food waste should be easier than current systems permit.

Participants also suggested that certain packaging materials make it difficult to store food. For example, packaging that is bulky makes it hard to store in the fridge:

…unless it’s vacuum sealed, I usually take it out of the packaging it was in not just because it does last longer, I also keep more fridge space, because those packages are too big. (Male, 18–24 years old, live with another adult, living in metropolitan Melbourne)

Participants were also concerned that they do not necessarily know how to store food well and would appreciate information on packaging that enables them to decide what is best for decreasing food waste. One participant said labelling needed to include more detailed storage information:

It’s the full food storage information in terms of whether it should be stored in the fridge or on the shelf or in the pantry. When the box is opened, whether you should put it in a sealed container or whether it’s okay to leave in the packaging. Once it’s opened, does that change how you need to store it? (Female, 36–45 years old, single, living alone in metropolitan Melbourne)

Participants were more concerned about the potential environmental impacts of plastic packaging than food waste. Some participants believed that in some cases, packaging can increase the likelihood of food waste. Comments centred around the type of packaging materials used around fresh produce (e.g., plastic). Many participants queried whether this packaging actually maintained fresh produce’s quality or whether it simply masked inferior produce. Removing the ‘natural packaging’ (skin/husks) off fresh produce (e.g., corn cob husks) and then packaging produce in plastic was viewed as reducing quality and shelf life. Packaging without clear storage instructions was seen as unhelpful.

4.3. Ugly

This final section relates to the issues identified that are problematic from a systemic point of view, where the consumer has limited or no power to reduce food waste. These issues might also require complex problem solving or design alternatives. This category also comprises issues that participants did not know how to solve or provide better alternatives.

Participants, in the main, do not engage with food-saving components of packaging. This may be because they do not understand the ability of packaging to reduce food waste. Participants also reported issues with portion and packaging sizes. For example, one participant suggested that they often had to buy more than they needed, because it was the only package size available:

Because sometimes you’ll have to buy more than what you need. If something’s pre-packaged, and you need half a kilo and you can only buy a kilo, you’re going to waste half a kilo, so there’s more food waste with packaging. (Male, 56–65 years old, family with older children at home, living in metropolitan Melbourne)

In another example, participants suggested that because plastic was the ‘bigger problem’, they would rather waste food than increase plastic packaging. Participants felt they could not buy food that was not packed in plastic, because plastic was the only kind of packaging available. Further, if they had to make a trade-off between food waste and packaging, they would increase food waste instead of using more packaging:

Well, if [packaging can reduce food waste] that’s true, I think I’d rather have more food waste than have more packaging. (Male, 46–55 years old, married or de facto couple, living in regional Australia).

The concerns about packaging waste are genuine; however, these concerns overshadow the potential benefits of packaging and, consequently, lead to more food waste. Some participants might see how packaging can reduce food waste, but see food waste as less important than packaging waste, or find the tension between these two issues difficult to navigate:

So yeah, it’s kind of like a double-edged sword, isn’t it? Because yeah. Then you’ve got more packaging waste and less food waste. So, I don’t know which the better of two evils really. (Female, 25–35 years old, living with partner in metropolitan Melbourne)

Other participants suggested that food packaging is not something they get to choose, and that the packaging is not within their remit as consumers. For example, one participant said:

Because you’re still going to eat it if it’s packaged or not, how it’s packaged doesn’t really affect if you’re going to actually eat the food. (Female, 26–35 years old, family with older children at home, living in metropolitan Melbourne)

Participants also asked for better information on reducing food waste to be available on the packaging or in the retail location where they purchase their food:

I see packaging as good for information. Personally, I wouldn’t link the packaging to help users with food waste. I just see it as a way to give information to users to what to do with the product. I wouldn’t see it as a direct correlation to stop food waste. (Male, 26–35 years old, living in share house with housemates in metropolitan Melbourne)

However, participants also stated they would like the information provided to be accurate and not overtly driven by marketing techniques. One participant expressed a high level of distrust in the information on packaging, saying that ‘there’s so much information out there, you don’t know who to believe’, but that if information about packaging reducing food waste came from the government, they might be likely to believe it (Male, 26–35 years old, living in a share house in metropolitan Melbourne).

These perceptions are in line with findings in previous research, which showed participants commonly feel some angst towards packaging, specifically plastic packaging, as the highest cause of environmental harm, despite research that suggests packaging represents a small percentage of environmental impact within food systems [9,15,18,49]. Consumers’ lack of awareness of this holistic approach ultimately hinders food-saving techniques employed through emerging packaging technologies [9,15,18,49].

A further issue is that participants, in the main, did not engage with save-food packaging designs. Most participants said they do not read packaging and labelling in any detail. They only read packaging information when it is a new product or when they are looking for something specific, such as nutritional information:

I tend to not take huge amounts of notice of labels unless I’m looking for something in particular. If there were two options, I might look at the lower sugar option as the product. But that’s about it. (Female, 46–55 years old, family with older children at home, living in metropolitan Melbourne)

I’m a bit of a creature of habit and I pretty much just have things in storage that was on my list at the time. But if I was buying something new, I would read the packaging for sure. (Female, 46–55 years old, living with a housemate in metropolitan Melbourne)

Participants were asked directly about if and how they engaged with certain aspects of on-pack information designed to help increase the shelf-life of food (and, therefore, reduce food waste). The results show that consumers often do not look at labels for information that might help reduce food waste, such as storage instructions. Sometimes this is because they are confident in their knowledge of storage techniques, so they do not usually read storage instructions:

I have learned a lot about defrosting and freezing food and safety in regard to that. No, I think I feel fairly confident. It’s not something that I will probably stop in the supermarket to look at and read. (Female, 46–55 years old, a family or single parent with school aged children at home, living in rural Victoria)

Others said they either only loosely follow storage instructions or do not follow them at all:

I don’t think [this label with storage instructions] would change my behaviour though, because I’m like, ‘I’ve consumed eggs for this long, and they’ve been fine’. And I don’t really like the idea of having extra packaging in my fridge. (Female, 25–35 years old, living with partner in regional Victoria).

Participants discussed the interrelationship between packaging issues and storage issues in their homes, including confusion about whether it was best to store food in the package it came in, or to move it into other storage containers:

The cling wrap will still let in some air. It’s not going to be completely airtight. So, the general rule of thumb is, chicken can be two to three days in the fridge. Meat can be three to seven. So, you just have to be mindful of what packaging you’ve got. You can even benefit from taking it off the original packaging you get and putting it in an airtight bag like a get a sandwich bag, lower it into some water and as that pushes out the air from it, seal it and then you’ve got a relatively air free bag. (Male, 18–24 years old, living in with another adult in metropolitan Melbourne).

In another example, one participant expressed confusion—and a recent change in practices—about whether leftover canned goods should be stored in their can or should be transferred into another container. The information on the label of some canned goods suggests placing the contents into a separate container. Because this is only some goods and not others, the consumers do not know what they should do. Another consumer talked about how they removed lettuce leaves from the packaging they came in because they felt the leaves would ‘sweat’ in the packaging and deteriorate more quickly, even though this packaging might actually be designed to increase the shelf-life of this product:

I also have no idea what to do with foil packaging. I’m like I don’t know if it’s recycled. I don’t know if it’s something I said. I just don’t know what to do with it...Whereas everything else I can look at them work it out. (Female, 18–24 years old, living alone in metropolitan Melbourne)

The findings evidently show confusion amongst participants about the features of packaging that can help them save food and reduce food waste. The environmental impacts of packaging were a of higher concern than that of food waste. Where participants obtain information about these trade-offs and what they believe can cause confusion. There is a lack of holistic understanding of packaging’s role in protecting and containing food and packaging’s features designed to reduce food waste. If a participant was familiar with a brand, they were less likely to read any information supplied on-pack regarding storage advice, serving sizes, and so on. Any messaging on-pack, therefore, needs to be targeted and clear.

5. Conclusions

This research has demonstrated that consumers do not understand the impacts of packaging on food waste reduction. It also shows that reducing packaging, including plastic packaging, is seen as more important than reducing food waste. This is a dilemma for those working towards reducing food waste, as much food waste could be diverted by apposite packaging solutions, and some of these solutions will inevitably be plastic. Shifting the negative rhetoric of waste away from packaging and prioritising food waste is likely to be difficult to achieve. Plastic has been very effectively demonised by the media over an extended time frame and this message is widely accepted by consumers.

Packaging designs could be successful in reducing food waste by providing information for consumers on storage options, especially if such information could be combined with information that consumers already seek, such as nutrition, allergens, or fat content. Consumers mostly believe they already know how to store food, but this knowledge is not always ‘top of mind’ at the time decisions about storage need to be made.

A major dilemma for our participants was that of portion size, where they were ‘forced’ to buy products in packages that were too large for their household consumption patterns. While there is considerable existing research about consumer behaviour regarding portion sizes and portion size labelling, much of this is related to health and nutrition concerns, rather than food waste (Cecchini & Warin, 2016; Hieke et al., 2016). However, we found that consumers thought about portion sizes mostly in terms of the capacity of their household to eat the food before it would go off, and in relationship to their storage capacity and shopping frequency.

Consumers also do not feel empowered to enact change when it comes to food and food packaging. They buy what is available to them when they are shopping. This shows that convenience plays a big part in household decision-making about food. While this is not new, asking consumers to sacrifice convenience to reduce food waste is problematic. Convenience is a concrete and instant outcome, whilst the reduction of food waste is abstract and in the future. Concomitant with convenience is the issue of consumer demand for non-plastic alternatives. Consumers clearly prefer non-plastic food packaging but bemoan that it is not sufficiently available when purchasing food.

There are at least two streams of consumer perceptions to consider when establishing how food packaging can reduce food waste: the first is how practically useful or otherwise the packaging is for their needs; the second is their perceptions about packaging itself. There are tensions and trade-offs between these two sets of considerations. This research shows that consumers do not see food waste as a major issue, especially when compared to plastic packaging. They think plastic packaging is the major issue and that food waste is a secondary consideration. This probably has a lot to do with media coverage demonising plastic. However, our research also shows that consumers can be encouraged to save food with appropriate prompts and with packaging designed to limit the cognitive, conative, and affective burden placed on consumers. The acceptability of packaging technologies to consumers is critical to the success of save-food strategies. Our research shows that packaging designs and consumers’ relationships with them can be categorised in terms of Good, Bad, and Ugly from the consumers’ perspective. Good packaging design will save food. Bad packaging design will increase food waste, and very poor (Ugly) packaging will increase food waste and contribute to wider environmental degradation. Consumers are unlikely to demand better packaging, as that may incur increased household costs. Relying on consumer demand for save-food waste packaging will lead to increased food waste, not less. Furthermore, consumers do not see the benefit of redesigning packaging (besides financial benefits), because they perceive all packaging (especially plastic) as waste. However, some consumers do recognise, on some level, the food-saving capacity of packaging, even if they also see the tension between food waste and packaging waste. This existing knowledge about how packaging can help reduce food waste could be drawn upon for packaging design and consumer education programs.

6. Implications

Our research provides a fundamental review of the aspects of packaging and storage information that influence consumers’ behaviour and considers how consumers review this information at different points: purchase, storage, consumption, and after consumption. Our results indicate that packaging design needs to be developed collaboratively with industry to ensure that commercial considerations are balanced with those of consumers and in the light of environmental considerations. Specifically, packaging should be designed to adapt to the usage and storage behaviours of different households, and with a particular goal of being easy to open, decant, and reseal and to safely store unused portions.

Furthermore, the results also suggest the need for packaging designs that provide clear and easy-to-understand information about how to use packaging to reduce food waste, recognising that there are tensions between consumer information, the functions of packaging, and commercial/marketing considerations. Specifically, space on packaging is already extremely limited, and food waste instructions need to compete with other informational requirements i.e., nutrition, health, disposal, usage/directions, cooking, etc. On-pack information should be easy to find at relevant parts of the product’s journey (retail, consumption, storage, disposal) but not add to the informational clutter that can easily occur on the packaging.