Consumers choose lower pesticide use over picture-perfect produce - Linking Agriculture to the Economy

Food Review, Jan-March, 1991 by Lori Lynch

Consumers Choose Lower Pesticide Use Over Picture-Perfect Produce

When offered a choice between picture-perfect produce and blemished produce, California consumers preferred the picture perfect. Yet when told that the scarred produce had been grown with half the pesticide sprays, these consumers overwhelmingly chose the scarred oranges.

How important is a product's appearance? It depends on who is asked. The produce industry believes consumers insist upon blemish-free fruits and vegetables. Consumer advocates and environmentalists maintain that people are willing to trade some degree of physical perfection for the lower use of pesticides.

The produce industry often uses chemicals to protect a product's appearance. As a tomato wholesaler declared, "the important thing for us, in a tomato, is to get it to the consumer looking good. No blemishes, no black spots, no softness." John McClung, spokesman for the United Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Association, acknowledges that chemicals are used to "some degree" for cosmetic purposes.

The link between high standards and chemical use is not a new idea. In 1978, Robert Van den Bosch, an Environmental Protection Agency researcher, reported that a significant percentage of pesticide use is for reducing blemishes or the number of insect parts on fruit and vegetables and not for improving nutrition and wholesomeness.

In 1979, the Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) reported similar findings that 25 to 50 percent of pesticide use in apple production was to maintain appearance. In 1989, the National Academy of Science's Board of Agriculture reinforced the findings, stating that most fruit and vegetable marketing standards were for cosmetic purposes that rarely affected safety or nutritional value.

Yet the high appearance standards have not guaranteed customer satisfaction. For example, consumers express dissatisfaction with the taste and ripeness of market tomatoes. And responding to a University of California-Davis survey about food purchasing decisions, consumers said their most important concerns were food safety, nutrition, and flavor.

Why does industry place such a heavy emphasis on how products look? Because people choose produce by appearance and price. Consumers look for "purchase clues" before deciding what to buy. In most stores, the only clues are appearance and price. Retailers don't offer taste samples, so consumers don't know the flavor of the available fruits and vegetables. To determine if a product is ripe, a person must squeeze it to feel the softness or firmness. However, even a squeeze is not a perfect clue. Consumers do not have exact information about a particular product's nutritional value. If they see blemishes or insect holes, they may wonder about the product's wholesomeness.

Most consumers do not know the agricultural practices used to grow a product and get it to a market in good condition. The kind and quantity of chemicals used and residue levels are not identifiable at the time of purchase. Therefore, it is not surprising that the message to retailers, wholesalers, and farmers is that appearance and low price, the two clues that can be determined at the store, are the primary characteristics that customers seek.

Consumers' concerns about pesticides for environmental and food safety reasons are on the rise. In 1965, Robert Bealer and Fern Willets surveyed over a thousand Pennsylvania households, finding 52 percent were bothered by pesticide use. In another survey, 19 years later, Carolyn Sachs, Dorothy Blair, and Carolyn Richter, of Pennsylvania State University, found the concern level had climbed to 81 percent. Consumers' concern for farmers' safety in applying pesticides increased dramatically from 15 to 79 percent. In 1989, a Food Marketing Institute survey showed that 82 percent of consumers perceived pesticide residues as a serious hazard, with an additional 13 percent, something of a hazard.

People are changing their behavior in response to pesticide and health concerns. Fewer consumers are using chemical sprays in their own home gardens. The Food and Drug Administration and the National Institutes of Health interviewed 4,000 individuals in 1986 and found that 62 percent had made major changes in their diets to reduce the risk of heart disease and cancer.

In 1988, the University of Florida and USDA's Economic Research Service surveyed consumers in four different locations across the country. Over half of the respondents said they were eating less of some foods because of safety concerns. Yet, The Packer, a trade publication for the fresh fruit and vegetable industry, found that while 86 percent of consumers expressed concern about chemical residues, only 26 percent responded that they had altered their fresh produce buying habits.

Changing purchasing habits may require consumers to make tradeoffs. One possible trade-off involving fresh produce is sacrificing some cosmetic perfection for lower pesticide use. The Packer, in another study, found that "looks appealing" was an important characteristic in selecting fresh produce. However, "taste/flavor" and "freshness/ripeness" were even more important. Thus, are consumers willing to trade picture perfection for lower pesticide use if taste and freshness are not affected?