Fruits and vegetables are inherently perishable hence they are considered as one of the most wasted categories of food. While several studies have been conducted to assess consumer level waste of fruits and vegetables, few have been conducted in developing countries like the Philippines. A survey, using a pre-tested questionnaire, and involving 500 respondents, was conducted in selected urban and peri-urban areas in the Philippines, to ascertain consumer level fruit and vegetable waste. The quantities of fruits and vegetables wasted by supermarket shoppers and those who purchased fruits in wet markets were comparably low at 3% - 4%. This low level of consumer fruit and vegetable waste was attributed to the small quantities (250 to 500 grams per purchase) purchased by consumers in both categories of markets. Consumer level fruit and vegetable waste, showed a positive correlation to household size. The level of fruit waste was positively related to household income, and negatively related to shopper’s age. Consumers who shopped in supermarkets, purchased larger quantities of fruit when compared to those who shopped in wet markets. Wet market shoppers on the other hand, purchased large quantities of vegetables. Decay, and quality loss manifested by shriveling, wilting, toughening, browning and softening were the main characteristics of fruits and vegetables discarded by consumers. The underlying causes of this waste, cited by respondents included “forgot to eat”, “poor quality”, “forgot to cook” and “overbuying”. Consumer efforts to minimize waste include buying enough for consumption, consuming or using immediately after purchase, planning their menus, improving storage and purchasing produce that is of good quality.
Food loss and waste occur at all stages in the food supply chain from harvesting, through post-harvest handling, processing, distribution and finally consumption. It has been estimated that in developing countries 40% of losses occur at postharvest and processing levels, while in industrialized countries more than 40% of losses take place at the retail and consumer levels [
Increasing urbanization accompanied by increasing incomes, the changing tastes and lifestyles of consumers, more women in the workforce and the need for convenience have resulted in the changes in consumer buying habits. The growth of supermarkets and hypermarkets in Asia [
In developed countries, studies on food waste at the consumer level have resulted in the identification of holistic definitive programs or actions to address food waste reduction. These programs complete the picture of the extent of losses along the supply chain from farm to table. In developing countries as is the case of the Philippines, studies have focused on post-harvest losses, with no study to date on consumer level waste. The purpose of the current study was to gain some perspective as to the extent of wastage of fruits and vegetables at the consumer level and to determine the factors that influence the levels of these wastes.
To achieve the objectives of this research, a survey on fruit and vegetable waste at the household level was conducted in selected urban and peri-urban areas in the Philippines. Using pre-tested questionnaires, the survey was administered through face to face interviews of market shoppers and through the distribution of pre-tested questionnaires to households. The respondents included shoppers from the three (3) supermarkets, three (3) wet markets, private and government offices, schools, and residential estates in cities of Metro Manila (representing the National Capital Region) and in CALABARZON (Cavite, Laguna, Batangas, Rizal and Quezon) which represent the outlying peri-urban provinces of Metro Manila (
The questionnaire addressed two issues, namely: 1) socio-demographic characteristics of consumers, and 2) consumer purchase behavior: types and volume of fruits, vegetables including fresh-cuts purchased, storage practices, nature and extent of wastes and measures taken to minimize the levels of waste. Observations were also made on the following: most frequently purchased fruits and vegetables in the whole and fresh-cut forms; purchase preferences (e.g. for fruits and vegetables that are pre-packed or sold in the loose format), and for the purchase of fresh cuts or ready-to-eat and/or cook fruits and vegetables, and those items sold on discount.
A total of 600 questionnaires were retrieved; each one was checked for completeness of information. Equal numbers (250 each) of survey questionnaires retrieved from the supermarket and wet market shoppers were then selected. The study employed qualitative and quantitative analyses. Data were presented in
tabular and graphical forms using descriptive statistics such as frequency counts, percentages, and means. Comparison and/or differences between the two groups of respondents in terms of socio-demographic characteristics, purchase behavior and practices, and levels of losses were determined using Chi-square, t-tests, and Analysis of Variance (ANOVA). Correlation analysis was also used to determine the factors associated with fruit and vegetable purchases and wastes.
Characteristics of Consumer Respondents
The socio demographic profile of respondents or consumers shopping in wet markets and in supermarkets is shown in
A majority of the respondents shopping in both types of markets were females, aged 20 to 30 years old (
Consumers who shopped in both categories of markets, originated from households composed of the husband, wife, children and other adults living with them―mostly the grandparents which is typical of the Filipino family. The composition of the household did not have any influence on the choice of markets to shop (X2 = 0.307).
Household income significantly influenced the choice of shopping locale. Higher income shoppers generally shopped in supermarkets. A majority of low income shoppers still preferred shopping in traditional wet markets for food, although, according to survey results a growing percentage of low income consumers shopped in supermarkets (income levels of PhP 100,000 - 200,000 which represent the D class). These changing buying habits align with the expansion of modern retail markets in the provinces. Moreover, this also brings in a new perspective, that supermarkets are no longer the shopping venue of higher income consumers.
CHARACTERISTICS OF RESPONDENTS | Wet Market Shoppers | Supermarket Shoppers |
---|---|---|
(n = 250) | (n = 250) | |
Place of Residence/Origin | ||
Metro Manila | 34.8 | 28.8 |
CALABARZON area | 65.2 | 71.2 |
X2 = 0.179 ns | ||
Gender | ||
Male | 24.6 | 30.4 |
Female | 75.4 | 69.6 |
X2 = 0.169 ns | ||
Age Range | ||
20 - 30 | 40.5 | 41.5 |
31 - 40 | 24.2 | 25.6 |
41 - 50 | 21.3 | 19.1 |
51 - 60 | 11.1 | 11.8 |
Above 60 | 2.9 | 2.0 |
X2 = 0.95ns | ||
Position in the Family | ||
Mother/wife | 46.0 | 44.6 |
Father/ Husband | 12.5 | 11.6 |
Daughter/Son | 36.7 | 39.4 |
Grandparent | 1.6 | 0.8 |
Others | 3.2 | 3.6 |
X2 = 0.96 ns | ||
Average Household Size | 5.0 | 4.6 |
F = 0.014** | ||
Household Composition | ||
Single household | 5.4 | 10.0 |
Husband and wife only | 5.8 | 5.0 |
Husband & wife +other adults | 2.9 | 3.7 |
Husband & wife +children + adults | 69.2 | 68.4 |
Others | 16.7 | 12.9 |
X2 = 0.307 ns | ||
Household Income (Range) | ||
Below 100 K | 26.1 | 17.4 |
100-200K | 27.0 | 26.0 |
201-300K | 19.5 | 17.4 |
301-500k | 14.2 | 21.3 |
Above 501 | 13.3 | 17.9 |
X2 = 0.048* |
NS: not significant at 5% level; *significant at 5% level; **significant at 1% level.
Consumer Purchasing Practices
Quantities of Fruits and Vegetables Purchased in Different Categories of Markets on a Weekly Basis
On a weekly basis, shoppers purchase between 4.9 to 5.6 grams of fruits and about 4.3 to 4.8 grams of vegetables (
Consumers also purchased different quantities of the different types of vegetables (
Produce | Quantity Bought (grams)/Shoppers Group | |
---|---|---|
Type | Wet Market | Supermarket |
Fruits (in grams) | 4864 | 5585 |
(F = 5.286) | ||
Vegetable (in grams) | 4839 | 4258 |
(F = 5. 350) |
*Differences between two groups of shoppers are significant at 5% level.
vegetable consumption in the country is relatively low.
Quantities of Fruit and Vegetable Purchased Per-Capita
Supermarket shoppers purchased larger quantities of fruits (179 grams) on a per capita basis, than did wet market shoppers (139 grams). With regards to vegetables, little difference was observed between the two respondent groups (132 - 138 grams). When compared to the 2003 data from the Food and Nutrition Research Institute (FNRI) of the Philippines where the average daily consumption per person was 110 grams of vegetables and 54 grams for fruits [
Reasons for Buying Fruits and Vegetables in Wet Markets vs. Supermarkets
Both groups differed as to their rationale for purchasing fruits and vegetables in different locations. Shoppers purchased fruits and vegetables in wet markets, owing to lower price, while those who shopped in supermarkets reported convenience as their priority (
A high percentage (34%) of supermarket buyers paid attention also to neat packaging as against only 3% for wet market buyers. Retail packaging is increasingly accepted and patronized by consumers. A study of Aban et al. (2009) on consumer perceptions of food safety indicated that consumers defined food safety as “proper food handling” and some have started to be food safety
conscious by buying vegetables that are well-packaged [
In the case of wet market buyers, lower price was the main determinant of patronage among 67% of the respondents. Also, in wet markets where fresh fruits and vegetables are sold in a loose format, consumers can opt to purchase only very small quantities of produce―such as 2 - 3 pieces of garlic, onions or potatoes - unlike in supermarkets where most produce is pre-packaged.
Formats of Fruits and Vegetables Purchased
A majority of respondents from both groups reported that they preferred buying fruits and vegetables in their intact or whole form. The difference between the two groups of buyers was not significant. A very low percentage of respondents from both the wet and supermarket groups purchased fresh cuts although fresh cuts appeared to be regularly purchased by supermarket shoppers. Fruits and vegetables in the loose format were selected by buyers before weighing and purchasing. Buyers in both wet markets and supermarkets showed a preference for purchasing fruits in the loose format. Retail-packaged produce was more likely to be purchased by supermarket shoppers than by wet market shoppers.
Almost all fruits and vegetables were sold in the loose format in wet markets, providing consumers with a fairly high level of flexibility in purchasing quantities needed. This allowed consumers to choose the number of purchases at any one time. In supermarkets, a higher percentage of consumers purchased pre- packaged fruits and vegetables than those buying in wet markets since they perceived the produce to be safe and of good quality. On the other hand, buyers in wet markets perceived packaged produce be of poor quality, and few purchased pre-packaged fruits and vegetables.
Frequency of Buying
There was a highly significant difference (X2 = 0) between shoppers in wet markets vs in supermarkets when it comes to frequency of buying. A higher percentage (14.8%) of wet market shoppers shopped on a daily basis when compared to only 6.1% of the respondents who shopped in supermarkets (
Approximately 57% of supermarket shoppers, shopped once weekly, only 23.4% shopped twice weekly and a very low percentage shopped on a daily basis (
Storage of Fruits and Vegetables Purchased in the Household
Both respondent groups stored their fruit and vegetable purchases in the refrigerator, indicating awareness on the effect of low temperature in maintaining quality and extending shelf life. Both respondent groups stored fresh produce either packaged in plastic or in the loose format in the refrigerator (
Depending on the commodity, packaging in plastic bags is advantageous in preventing moisture loss from the stored produce. In some cases, as is the case for leafy vegetables, packaging in plastic bags can accelerate the rate of decay which is often the case for leafy vegetables.
Fruits were also commonly kept in the loose format in the kitchen or in fruit bowl for consumption as dessert. Onions and potatoes were frequently stored in a kitchen bowl, given their low level of perishability.
Consumer Level-Waste of Fruits and Vegetables
Estimated Levels of Waste by Respondent Group
Respondents were asked to rate, based on their opinion or provide an estimate
Range Scale | Percent Reporting/Produce Type/Market Type | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
Fruits | Vegetables | |||
Wet Market | Supermarket | Wet Market | Supermarket | |
Less than 5% | 86.4 | 79.5 | 89.0 | 81.6 |
5% - 10% | 11.8 | 20.0 | 8.6 | 15.6 |
11% - 20% | 3.6 | 4.0 | 2.3 | 2.3 |
More than 20% | 1.4 | 1.3 | 0 | 0.7 |
based on their experience, the waste in the fruits and vegetables that they bought. Both respondent groups reported that the quantities of fruits and vegetables wasted by them were minimal (
Calculated Quantities of Consumer Level Waste of Selected Fruits and Vegetables Purchased by Respondent Groups
Based on the average quantities of fruits and vegetables purchased on a weekly basis and the reported range scale of waste, the actual quantities of fruits and vegetables wasted following their purchase was calculated. Wastes were significantly higher for fruits and vegetables purchased by supermarket buyers than by wet market buyers (
Even in supermarkets where a majority of fruits and vegetables are pre-packaged, the quantity purchased was small (usually 250 to 500 grams per pack) which was adequate for households. This was validated when respondents in both market types were asked to rate the adequacy of purchased volume of fruits and vegetables. Both respondent groups answered that the volume they bought was just enough for their consumption. A glean at the shopping bag or cart of the shoppers in wet markets and supermarkets respectively, proved that the quantities
Commodity | Wastes (%)/Source | |
---|---|---|
Wet Market | Supermarket | |
FRUITS | ||
Banana | 3.72 | 4.40 |
Apple | 3.18 | 4.00 |
Orange | 3.30 | 2.74 |
Mango | 1.84 | 2.50 |
Pineapple | 4.42 | 4.27 |
Watermelon | 2.63 | 4.19 |
Average F = 8.552** | 3.18 | 3.85 |
VEGETABLES | ||
Cabbage | 3.40 | 3.49 |
Pechay | 3.13 | 3.54 |
Eggplant | 3.92 | 4.41 |
Squash | 3.13 | 3.36 |
Tomato | 3.42 | 4.10 |
Onion | 2.67 | 3.47 |
Potato | 2.97 | 3.63 |
Carrot | 3.27 | 3.68 |
Bittergourd | 3.30 | 4.31 |
String beans | 3.32 | 3.64 |
Average F = 7.582** | 3.25 | 3.66 |
**Significant at 1% level.
purchased, appeared to be just enough hence losses were minimal.
Pineapples and bananas were most wasted by both wet market and supermarket buyers. Decay owing to the inability to consume was the main cause of losses in bananas, while in the case of pineapples, over-ripening and fermentation (often resulting from damage due to puncture,) was the main cause of loss. The lowest level of waste was recorded for mangoes, largely due to the fact that mangoes are one of the highly favored fruits in the Philippines and are consumed on ripening.
The highest level of vegetable waste occurred in eggplants followed by bitter gourds and tomatoes (
Factors that Contribute to Consumer Level Waste of Fruits and Vegetables
The inherent perishability of fruits and vegetables was the main cause of consumer level waste. Fruits purchased in wet markets or in supermarkets underwent decay mainly due to rotting (
Browning is yet another disorder that commonly occurs in fruits such as apples and bananas when stored under low temperature conditions.
Underlying Causes of Consumer Level Fruit and Vegetable Waste
The main reason given by shoppers for wasting fruits purchased in both wet markets and supermarkets was that they “forgot to eat” the fruit. This was the case for a higher percentage of supermarket shoppers than for wet market shoppers (
Vegetable waste resulted from “forgetting to cook” the produce purchased (
Ways of Disposing of Fruit and Vegetable Waste
The most common method of disposing of fruit and vegetable waste, was by using it as animal feed. A higher percentage of those who purchased their fruits and vegetables in supermarkets, disposed of their uneaten produce through garbage disposal (
Nature of Waste | Percent Reporting/Produce Type/Market Type | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
Fruits | Vegetables | |||
Wet Market | Supermarket | Wet Market | Supermarket | |
Rot/decay | 17.1 | 22.8 | 29.9 | 32.1 |
Shrivelling/wilting | 2.8 | 3.0 | 6.5 | 10.6 |
Hardening/toughening | - | - | 3.0 | 3.3 |
Browning | 8.1 | 10.3 | 5.5 | 5.1 |
Softening/overripening | 18.5 | 19.3 | 6.1 | 8.0 |
Commodity | Wet Market (n = 250) | Supermarket (n = 250) | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Forgot to eat | Poor quality | Forgot to cook | Over bought | Others | Forgot to eat | Poor quality | Forgot to cook | Over bought | Others | |
Major Fruits | ||||||||||
Banana | 48.4 | 10.0 | 2.8 | 10.4 | 0.4 | 53.6 | 9.6 | 2.0 | 15.5 | 3.6 |
Apple | 36.4 | 8.4 | 0.8 | 3.6 | 0.4 | 41.2 | 5.2 | 0.8 | 8.0 | 2.4 |
Orange | 26.4 | 10.0 | 1.2 | 2.0 | 2.4 | 32.0 | 5.6 | 1.2 | 57.6 | 2.4 |
Mango | 35.6 | 11.6 | 0.8 | 8.0 | 0.4 | 40.0 | 8.0 | 1.2 | 9.6 | 1.6 |
Pineapple | 19.2 | 6.8 | 0.8 | 4.8 | 1.6 | 2.8 | 6.8 | 1.6 | 7.2 | 2.8 |
Watermelon | 19.2 | 7.6 | 0.8 | 5.2 | 0.4 | 26.8 | 5.2 | 0.8 | 9.6 | 2.0 |
Average | 25.9 | 9.1 | 1.2 | 5.7 | 0.9 | 32.7 | 6.7 | 1.3 | 17.9 | 2.5 |
Major Vegetables | ||||||||||
Cabbage | 12.0 | 10.0 | 30.8 | 7.2 | 1.6 | 18.0 | 8.4 | 30.4 | 13.6 | 1.6 |
Pechay | 8.8 | 10.4 | 23.2 | 10.0 | 0.8 | 12.8 | 7.6 | 32.0 | 14.0 | 0.8 |
Eggplant | 9.2 | 15.6 | 25.6 | 5.2 | 1.2 | 13.2 | 10.0 | 29.6 | 9.2 | 1.2 |
Squash | 6.4 | 8.4 | 26.4 | 4.8 | 1.6 | 12.0 | 6.4 | 24.8 | 8.8 | 1.6 |
Carrot | 9.6 | 9.2 | 23.6 | 6.0 | 1.2 | 15.2 | 6.4 | 27.2 | 11.6 | 1.2 |
Tomato | 10.8 | 13.6 | 24.4 | 13.2 | 0.8 | 19.2 | 7.6 | 28.8 | 16.4 | 0.8 |
Onion | 9.2 | 10.4 | 22.8 | 8.4 | 1.2 | 14.4 | 8.4 | 24.8 | 17.6 | 1.2 |
Potato | 8.0 | 11.2 | 24.4 | 7.2 | 1.6 | 15.6 | 6.8 | 28.0 | 12.4 | 1.6 |
Bitter gourd | 9.2 | 7.6 | 25.6 | 6.8 | 1.6 | 12.8 | 5.2 | 28.0 | 10.4 | 1.6 |
String beans | 7.6 | 6.4 | 26.8 | 5.6 | 0.8 | 16.0 | 5.6 | 25.6 | 10.0 | 0.8 |
Average | 9.8 | 10.2 | 25.3 | 7.4 | 1.2 | 14.9 | 7.2 | 25.3 | 7.4 | 1.2 |
and vegetables as compost.
Consumer Efforts to Reduce Fruit and Vegetable Waste
Respondents were asked whether they made any effort to reduce the wastage of the fresh produce purchased by them. A high percentage replied “yes”. The two most common methods of reducing waste of fresh produce, were through buying produce for immediate consumption and the immediate use of produce that was purchased (
Correlation between Quantities Bought, Levels of Waste and Socio- demographic Profile
A correlation analysis was performed to ascertain the relationship between the quantities of fruits and vegetables purchased with demographic characteristics and the quantities of fruits and vegetables wasted (
Method | Wet Market Shoppers | Supermarket Shoppers | |
---|---|---|---|
Percent Reporting* | |||
Buy enough for consumption Consume/use immediately Plan menu Proper storage Buy only good quality Others | 43.2 23.6 6.0 6.8 4.4 4.4 | 28.8 18.8 7.6 6.4 1.6 5.2 | |
*Not all respondents gave answer and some respondents gave more than one answer.
Age | HH Size | HH Income | Qty Fruits | Fruit Waste | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Age | Correlation Coefficient | 1.000 | −0.103* | 0.022 | 0.103* | −0.092* |
Sig. (2-tailed) | . | 0.026 | 0.643 | 0.022 | 0.043 | |
N | 466 | 451 | 490 | 490 | ||
HH Size | Correlation Coefficient | 1.000 | 0.162** | 0.207** | 0.107* | |
Sig. (2-tailed) | . | 0.001 | 0.000 | 0.019 | ||
N | 440 | 476 | 476 | |||
HH Income | Correlation Coefficient | 1.000 | 0.124** | 0.088 | ||
Sig. (2-tailed) | 0. | 0.008 | 0.059 | |||
N | 461 | 461 | ||||
Qty Fruits | Correlation Coefficient | 1.000 | 0.368** | |||
Sig. (2-tailed) | 0. | 0.000 | ||||
N | 500 | |||||
Fruit Waste | Correlation Coefficient | 1.000 | ||||
Sig. (2-tailed) | . | |||||
N | 500 |
*Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed); **Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
Age | HH Size | HH Income | Qty Vege | Vege Waste | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Age | Correlation Coefficient | 1.000 | −0.103* | 0.022 | −0.002 | −0.083 |
Sig. (2-tailed) | . | 0.026 | 0.643 | 0.956 | 0.066 | |
N | 466 | 451 | 490 | 490 | ||
HH Size | Correlation Coefficient | 1.000 | 0.162** | 0.260** | 0.072 | |
Sig. (2-tailed) | 0. | 0.001 | 0.000 | 0.118 | ||
N | 440 | 476 | 476 | |||
HH Income | Correlation Coefficient | 1.000 | 0.066 | 0.026 | ||
Sig. (2-tailed) | 0. | 0.158 | 0.577 | |||
N | 461 | 461 | ||||
Qty Vege | Correlation Coefficient | 1.000 | 0.274** | |||
Sig. (2-tailed) | 0. | 0.000 | ||||
N | 500 | |||||
Vege Waste | Correlation Coefficient | 1.000 | ||||
Sig. (2-tailed) | . | |||||
N | 500 |
*Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed); **Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
was a significant relationship between the quantities of fruits purchased, the age of the shopper, household size, and household income, while the quantities of vegetables purchased correlated only to household size. This means that older consumers who are usually more health conscious and those with bigger households buy comparably larger quantities of fruits and vegetables. Higher income households also buy larger quantities of fruits which are more expensive than vegetables.
On the other hand, the level of fruit waste showed a significant relationship to household size, meaning that larger households who also purchased larger quantities of fruits wasted more. This was not the case for vegetables given the small quantities purchased as compared to household size. Fruit waste also showed a negative correlation to age, meaning that younger consumers tend to waste more than older ones which corroborates the findings of Lipinski et al. (2013) [
Fruit and vegetable waste are significantly related to the quantities purchased. This implies that more wastes are incurred with higher quantities purchased. The level of fruit and vegetable waste also differed significantly based on the point of purchase (as shown in
Consumer level waste of fruits and vegetables was comparably low (around 3% - 4%) for both wet market and supermarket buyers. This is likely due to the fact that small quantities (250 - 500 grams) of fresh produce were purchased by consumers in both markets. Almost all fruits and vegetables were sold in a loose format in fresh markets, hence the consumers have the flexibility in buying only the quantities needed. In the case of the supermarket, while fruits and vegetables are packaged, the quantity per pack is almost the same as that of the quantity purchased in the loose format by wet market buyers.
Consumer level fruit and vegetable waste was highly correlated to the quantities of fruits and vegetables purchased indicating that more wastes are incurred with larger purchases. The quantities of waste in both produce categories however differed by type of market shopper, affirming that consumers who shop in supermarkets waste more than those who shop in wet markets. On the other hand, consumer level waste of fruit was positively related to household size and household income, meaning that larger households and those with higher incomes wasted larger quantities of fruits, but fruit waste was negatively related to respondent’s age, meaning that younger shoppers wasted more than older ones.
While consumer level waste of fruits and vegetable in urban households in the Philippines is relatively small, measures must still be instituted to minimize or further reduce the levels of these wastes in order to increase the consumption of these produce items. Consumer awareness must be raised, and consumers must be educated on the importance of minimizing wastes, through better handling and storage of the foods they purchase.
Funding support through a letter of agreement with the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations-Regional Office for Asia the Pacific (FAO-RAP), and assistance of PHTRC staff, and, of Ms. Yasmin Fajardo are gratefully acknowledged.
Esguerra, E.B., del Carmen, D.R. and Rolle, R.S. (2017) Purchasing Patterns and Consumer Level Waste of Fruits and Vegetables in Urban and Peri-Urban Centers in the Philippines. Food and Nutrition Sciences, 8, 961-977. https://doi.org/10.4236/fns.2017.810069