3.4.2. Product-Specific Causes

When analysing and combining qualitative and quantitative results for each FV category, several causes of waste appeared. Policies and practices affected almost all products, for example, accurate orders and regular rotation of produce. In addition to these general causes, there were also specific causes for the different FV categories. An overview of product-specific causes is presented in Table 3 and is further elaborated upon below.


**Table 3.** Overview of product-specific causes. Qualitative and quantitative results were analysed to describe the product-specific causes of waste for each of the 19 fruit and vegetable categories.

A broad **product range** was kept by all three stores. For example, one store offered 49 different variants of lettuce and 32 different variants of tomatoes throughout the year, and the large selection increased the risk of waste because of difficulties in predicting the demand and making correct orders. Potato also had a large product range that made the demand difficult to predict. The waste quota of cabbage, carrot and onion was low, however, while some of the more unusual types with low demand within the same FV category had higher waste quotas. Berries have irregular demand from time to time, causing a high waste quota, but the stores still wanted to prioritise customer service and still offered the products. The case of cucumber differed, in the sense that it had high turnover and had few varieties. On the other hand, compared to, for instance, tomato that had many different varieties, the product could not be substituted with a similar product, and therefore the stores ordered some extra to make sure that they would always had cucumbers in stock.

**Lack of cooling** made several FV products lose their freshness quickly. Cooling prolonged shelf-life and resulted in lower waste. Potato, melon, sweet pepper, grape, carrot and lemon were usually placed in the cold, but due to a lack of cooling areas, there was always a compromise as to which products were placed in the refrigerator.

Some products were more sensitive and for **fragile produce** it was especially important to have correct execution of employees' practices. Banana was a sensitive product and required gentle replenishment and stacking. Pears and nectarines had a thin peel and needed thorough controls and removal of damaged products to avoid bad produce contaminating others. Other products considered sensitive were sweet pepper, berries, avocado and some types of cabbages. Tomatoes, apples and melons could be bruised by the employees when replenishing unpackaged products if not treated with care.

**Customers' behaviour** could cause food waste. For instance, it often happened that customers divided a bunch of bananas and single bananas were left on the displays. Customers were demanding and wanted green to yellow bananas and often rejected yellow ones with small brown dots. Moreover, customers often chose products, such as lettuce, with the longest best before date, leaving bags with fewer days on the shelves. Pears had thin and sensitive peel and the product could easily be damaged by customers when treated improperly. It was also common that customers damaged avocados when they tried to decide their maturity by squeezing them, and many items were discarded due to this behaviour. It happened frequently that customers took apples that were more expensive but self-weighed and labelled them as a variety with a lower price. This could lead to incorrect figures in the ordering system and in turn cause incorrect orders.

Products with primary **packaging** gave both higher and lower waste. An explanation for the high waste of packaged pear, grape, nectarine and onion was that if one piece of fruit was damaged, the entire lot was wasted. The waste quotas for packaged orange, clementine and lemon were higher than for the unpackaged alternatives. The packaging for these products was a mesh polypropylene bag, which did not have any protective function but made it easier for customers to grab a bag and move on. If one clementine, for instance, turned bad, the whole package was wasted. The waste quota for packaged clementine was 2.4% and for unpackaged, it was 0.6%. Some of the banana types were packaged in plastic bags and condensation was formed, which turned the bananas bad. For some other products, the packaging reduced the waste. The waste quota of packaged tomatoes was 0.9% and for unpackaged, it was 1.6%. The plastic clam shells dominated the packaging of tomatoes, but there were other plastic and cardboard packaging solutions available occasionally. Tomatoes were sensitive and could be bruised by the employees when replenishing unpackaged tomatoes, and the packaging protected the produce from damage. The waste quota for packaged sweet peppers was 2.1%, and unpackaged sweet pepper was 4%, indicating that the protective function of the plastic around the produce played a role in reducing waste from both handling and evaporation. The same case goes for carrots, as the waste quota of packaged carrots was 0.5% and for the unpackaged 2%.

**Best before date** was mainly used on washed and packaged products. The waste for potatoes depended mainly on the best before date. Packaged potatoes were removed when the best before date came close to expiring. Melons and some cabbages were sold cut and packaged in plastic wrapping. Produce cut at the department was forced by law to have a best before date label, which shortened the shelf-life and increased the waste. The store provided the service to households that did not want to buy an entire melon or cabbage. The lettuce also had a best before date and it was removed one or two days before the date expired. This increased the food waste. For lettuce, the waste quota for products with a whole plant and no best before date was 0.9%, and for packaging with lettuce leaves and a best before date, the waste quota was 5.1%.

**Organic** products often had higher waste quotas compared to their conventional counterparts. This was true for banana, apple, tomato, lettuce, orange, cabbage, and onion. Purchase prices for organic products often fluctuated over the course of the year, and the effect of pricing affected the willingness of customers to pay, while making it difficult to predict the demand.
