COLUMBUS, Ohio – Fruits and vegetables in most grocery stores appear are perfectly shaped and grown to perfection. Hard to find a blemish on them. But what about those products that appear deformed, even unsightly?

Sad to say, much of these fruits and veggies find their way into the nearest dumpster at these stores or are fed to hogs, never making their way to the grocery.

A recent study at The Ohio State University suggests that about 41 percent of harvested food is edible but unmarketable because of its appearance. Now, those researchers are assessing ways to “win” with ugly foods in the marketplace by testing consumer acceptance of imperfect foods that don’t come with a built-in discount, a tactic used by some retailers that hasn’t had much staying power.

“Any time you codify that cosmetically imperfect produce is somehow lesser, you’re stuck selling it for less and therefore you undermine the entire value chain,” said senior study author Brian Roe, professor in OSU’s Department of Agricultural, Environmental and Development Economics.

“We see that once you promote it as being more natural and as reducing wasted food, the discount is less than it otherwise would be. There is also a cluster of folks who are actually willing to pay as much or more because they value reducing food waste and they value the fact that it’s got just as much nutrition as standard produce.”

According to Roe, explaining the value of misshapen vegetables, proving they are as healthful as their picture-perfect counterparts, could help improve sales of ugly produce and help reduce food waste as the same time.

“In our research we surveyed 1,300 U.S. residents who shopped and cooked for their households,” Roe added.

Participants in the online survey were randomly assigned to receive one or a combination of two marketing messages: ugly carrots’ nutritional quality equals that of blemish-free produce, and there are social costs linked to throwing away food with cosmetic flaws.

The study measured consumers’ responses to hypothetical shopping scenarios for carrots. Participants were most open to buying bunches containing imperfect carrots after being presented with both of those marketing messages promoting ugly carrots’ personal and societal benefits. Either message alone was not effective at convincing consumers to buy misfit carrots.

Findings also showed that respondents were willing to pay, with a small discount, for some level of mixed bunches containing both ugly and standard carrots. Researchers see this as a sign that mixed package of the two could be profitable. 

Participants also selected from images of their preferred two-pound carrot bunches and price points, with six bunches (either with or without the greenery attached) containing from zero to 100 percent ugly carrots and prices ranging from $2.18 to $1.39 per pound.

In another choice test, consumers could select from just two options, a bunch of all standard carrots or all imperfect carrots with or without green leaves attached, in a hypothetical purchase form either a farmers market or a conventional grocery store.

But a top contender in terms of profitability for farmers did emerge from the analysis of participant responses: bunches containing 40 percent ugly carrots and 60 percent standard carrots with green leaves attached sold at farmers markets where consumers are exposed to the combined marketing messages.

“If you’re at a farmers market, you’re thinking more holistically, you’re not thinking about cosmetic perfection. You expect things to be more ‘real’,” Roe said. “So, I think then people realize this is what we might expect if we’re getting produce directly from a farmer. There’s more room for imperfection because it’s probably not interpreted as imperfection. It’s interpreted as naturalness.”

In the end, the research team analyzed the tipping point in consumer willingness to pay that could make harvesting ugly carrots profitable, an important calculation for farmers who need a positive return on their investment into planting, picking and shipping their crops.

“The USDA has a say in the percentage of non-standard produce that can be sent to market and that limit may need to be revisited,” Roe said. “We hope these findings will change the viewpoint of the industry. There hasn’t been a lot of rethinking of standards in light of food waste, so that would be one policy lever that could be re-examined to deal with food waste in the modern era.”