3.2.3. Product Specification

The standards by which product is removed from the supply chain was variable and market dependent. It was determined that between 68.6% and 86.7% of undamaged, edible field and shed products were rejected as outgrades, and consequently discarded due to product specifications (Table 6). Interviews with supply chain actors involved in harvesting (Table 1), revealed that on any day specific instructions from field supervisors were critical in determining harvestable product. Field Supervisor 1 commented *"The size we pick depends on the days' price* ... *if the price is a little bit high, the market wants the small tomatoes as well. Otherwise, if the price is low,* ... *we do not pick the small stuff."* Interviews with sorters (Table 1) affirmed that high field and packing shed losses were mostly due to cosmetic appearance, with edible product being discarded. A sorter commented *"Sometimes [they're] too small* ... *, too big* ... *, too odd shaped—plus the markings [so we throw them out]".* When there is an over-supply of volume, secondary lines are out-graded due to buyers tightening the specification in favour of premium product. However, standards are not only a reflection of supply and demand, but also a reduced market share, with increased competition from newer varieties coming onto the market, placing upward pressure on standards. Grower 1 explained *"it has changed dramatically in the last 10 or 15 years but particularly in the last 4 years. our market share has diminished a lot...when I first started, there was only round [tomatoes], there was nothing else. there wasn't even romas* ... *[now] 42 years later* ... *a decent retail shop* ... *could have 15 lines of tomatoes. A housewife* ... *might pick a few gourmets, a couple of romas, a few cherries, and couple of teardrop, maybe a truss, whatever suits."* due to a reduced market share and in the absence of new market opportunities, it is likely that levels of postharvest losses at the primary production stage will increase in subsequent years. Private supermarket policy and standards were mentioned by most supply chain actors and industry specialists as a driver of postharvest losses via stringent specifications and the ability to reject product, by the pallet, based on a single blemish. The practice of supermarkets over-ordering and then having a pick of premium product was highlighted by

extension officer 1 *"they pick and choose and they control the market"*. Another example of an asymmetric supermarket practice likely to elevate postharvest loss is the re-negotiation on price due to subjective quality standards. Extension officer 1 revealed that *"* ... *you'll lock in a price* ... *two weeks ahead, which is what you have to do* ... *and if there is a change in market, you can bet your bottom dollar that [your product is] going to be rejected [in part or full]* ... *because [the supermarkets] will go and buy if off the [market] floor at a cheaper price."*


**Table 6.** Identified reasons for product being removed from the commercial supply chain, expressed as a percent of total losses in the field or in the packing shed.

<sup>a</sup> Includes losses collected off the ground, walking behind harvest aid during harvest, and losses thrown away by sorters on harvest aid in field. Sample number (harvesting) = 113. <sup>b</sup> Collected off waste conveyer from the first sorting point in packing shed. Sample number (packaging shed) = 102 <sup>c</sup> Mistakenly harvested, likely due to being knocked from bush during harvest.

Discussion with industry specialists (Table 2) focused on the wider consumer purchasing and behaviour elements that underpin private food standards. Extension officer 1 stated that *"perfect fruit [was] the crux of the whole matter"*, commenting that *"as an agricultural society we have not done enough work in educating the consumer"* about produce, particularly produce appearance and the purpose of used-by-dates. In support of this view, extension officer 2 likened the supermarket standards to expecting produce to *"conform like a packet of Arnott's biscuits!"*. The academic summarised that *"Supermarkets have gained a lot of power, and with that power they are imposing their own rules and standards,"* they *"demand from their wholesalers and primary suppliers exactly [what they] want."* He continues, *"this is*

*important because [supermarkets] have been imposing more stringent standards and* ... *the growers* ... *have got to abide by very, very, particular standards."* He finishes stating that *"the rigid regime* ... *probably does lead to food waste in the field."*
