randd.defra.gov.ukrandd.defra.gov.uk/Document.aspx?Document=11697_YBR0876... · Web viewInstead...
137
1 FO0438 [FFG 1104] - YBR0876E REVIEW OF FACTORS AFFECTING FRUIT AND VEGETABLE DEMAND Terry, L. A.*, Medina, A., Foukaraki, S. and Whitehead, P. (2013)
Transcript of randd.defra.gov.ukrandd.defra.gov.uk/Document.aspx?Document=11697_YBR0876... · Web viewInstead...
1
FO0438 [FFG 1104] - YBR0876EREVIEW OF FACTORS AFFECTING FRUIT AND VEGETABLE DEMAND
Terry, L. A.*, Medina, A., Foukaraki, S. and Whitehead, P. (2013)
This report is submitted by Cranfield University to Defra
YBR0876E_FO0438 [FFG 1104] final version
Project manager
Prof. Leon A. Terry
Plant Science Laboratory, Cranfield University
Signature: .........................
31st May, 2013
Approved
Martin Ellis
Head of Finance
Cranfield Health
Signature:
..........................
31st May, 2013
*Corresponding and senior author:Prof. Leon A. Terry BSc (Hons) ARCS MSc PhDProfessor of Plant SciencesHead of Plant Science LaboratoryHead of the Cranfield Soil and AgriFood InstituteVincent Building, Cranfield UniversityBedfordshire, MK43 0AL, UKTel.: 07500 766490Email: [email protected]
2
Executive summary and recommendations
The review set out to better understand the drivers that affect fruit and vegetable demand through structured
interviews with UK retailers, wholesalers, suppliers and others, and used data supplied by Kantar on estimated
UK expenditure and volume at retail for ten selected fruit and vegetables between 2003 and 2011 for the three
recognised quality tiers (premium, standard and value) to look at trends in purchasing behaviour. The research
revealed that data from Family Food used by Defra and others does not fully match data provided by Kantar;
the latter being principally used by industry.
Through structured questionnaires, retailers ranked price, promotion and availability as the three most important
drivers of fruit and vegetable demand in the market, respectively. However, the research has shown that the
demand drivers for individual fruit and vegetable are very different and produce specific. Results from the
current research have shown that some suppliers feared that promotions are being overused in the current
climate such that consumers are suffering from ‘promotion fatigue’ and are confused over the basis of some
such offers. Some feared that the overuse of promotions (e.g. up to 50 - 80% for some categories now sold) is
destroying the price structure of the whole fresh produce category and actually making promotions less
effective. It was also believed that multi-buys promotions and changing pack sizes across a range of categories
may be confusing consumers. It is now unclear whether consumers understand promotions and indeed the true
price of different fruit and vegetable lines as they have little to properly benchmark prices against. This
problem represents a real risk and one which should be addressed in future research.
In general, no retailers supported an even lower quality tier than that which already exists in the industry and
suggested that it would devalue the category. This is despite the universally agreed belief that the introduction
of the lower tier in 2008 was recognised as being a success for most fruit and vegetable lines in terms of crop
utilisation, reducing waste and sales. Most of the suppliers interviewed in this study also refuted that there was
any prospect of successfully introducing a lower quality tier. These views represent a real barrier to introducing
a lower quality tier than that which already exists for both home-grown and imported fresh produce and that
markets which are too price sensitive risk not being fully focussed on delivering value such that the continuity
in supply may suffer irreparably.
Additional Kantar data was used to investigate the impact of employment status, region, age, gender and social
economic grouping on purchasing behaviour of apple, potato and strawberry and showed unexpected results for
factors which might have been assumed to influence fruit and vegetable demand. Overall data provided
evidence that employment status has a significant effect on fruit and vegetable purchasing yet those working
3
‘Under 8 hrs’, ‘Unemployed’ or in ‘Full time Education’ purchased significantly lower amounts of standard and
value lines compared to those in full time employment or retired groups. Indeed, the purchasing of lower tier
fruit and vegetables tended to not be as influenced by socioeconomic grouping as expected and indicates that
increasing availability of lower quality fresh produce may not affect purchasing behaviour or consumption for
vulnerable groups. Generally, region had a minimal effect on purchasing behaviour across quality tiers whilst
those on the extremities of age groupings (‘80 and over’ and ‘under 30’ age groups) tended to purchase less
fruit and vegetables in the lower quality tiers. Overall the percentage of standard products purchased was
always the greatest.
Respondents in this research were asked whether the recent change to the EU marketing Standards for Fresh
Horticultural Produce Regulation (543/2011) which allowed for a lower quality standard for home processing of
fruit and vegetables have impacted their approach to quality. Most respondents stated that the changes have had
no effect and if anything that it would be best to flex the current low tier. There may however be opportunities
for better crop utilisation through the home processing derogation.
The present research has established that the fresh produce industry generally believes that the 5 A DAY
message has had little to no impact alone on fruit and vegetable demand and that in store promotions and use of
celebrity chefs in campaigns has had more of an effect on encouraging increased consumption in some market
segments.
4
Recommendations for future research:
1. Reconcile the overall markets trends shown by the different data sources (e.g. Family Food versus
Kantar).
2. Conduct further analysis to understand how temporal fluxes in volume and spend of specific fresh
produce types reflect changes in consumer attitudes or preference and whether they are related to
availability, seasonality and product differentiation (quality tiers).
3. To complement data on purchasing behaviour additional consumer research should be conducted on
establishing the intrinsic quality, perception and preferences with reference to different segmentation
(especially ethnicity/food culture, age, gender and socio-economic grouping) for individual fruit and
vegetable species.
4. Review the workings of the EU Regulations with a view to simplification.
5. Review the impact, mechanics and sustainability of promotions from both an industry and consumer
perspective.
5
Table of Contents
Executive summary and recommendations 3Recommendations for future research 5Acknowledgements 81. Aim and objectives 92. Approach and scope 10
2.1 Questionnaire design 102.2 Kantar Data and analysis 102.3 Limitations of the research 112.4 Confidentiality 12
3. Markets for fruit and vegetables 133.1 Introduction 133.2 Retail channels 133.3 Retail quality tiers 133.4 Foodservice channels 143.5 Foodservice quality tiers 153.6 Supply chains 15
4. Supply and quality specifications 174.1 Introduction 174.2 Retail specifications 18
4.2.1 Strawberry 19
4.2.2 Apple 214.2.3 Lettuce 224.2.4 Potato 22
4.3 Wholesaler specifications 225. Purchasing trends 23
5.1 Introduction 235.2 Retail 235.3 Trends in quality 265.4 Foodservice 31
6. Drivers and determinants of demand for fresh produce 336.1 Introduction 336.2 Commercial approaches 33
6.2.1 Example of consumer analysis – potato demand drivers 346.3 Analytical approaches 366.4 Discussion of key drivers of fruit and vegetable demand 36
6.4.1 Price 376.4.2 Impact of household incomes on purchasing of quality tiers 386.4.3 Impact of employment status and socioeconomic grouping (SEG) on
purchasing of quality tiers[potato, apple and strawberry] 40
1.2.3.4.5.6.
6.46.4.4 Impact of region on purchasing of quality tiers [potato, apple and strawberry] 416.4.5 Impact of age, gender and ethnicity on purchasing of quality tiers
6
[potato, apple and strawberry] 416.4.6 Promotions 436.4.7 Seasonality 46
7. Prospects for a lower quality tier 487.1 Retailers 477.2 Suppliers 497.3 Wholesalers 507.4 Consumers 51
8. Other considerations 528.1 Regulation and EU marketing standards for fresh produce 528.2 Five-A-Day targets and influence of media 548.3 Fruit and vegetable waste 56
9. Recommendations for further research 57References 58Appendices 59Annex 1-12 63Notes 96
7
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to firstly thank Defra for funding this research and the IGD for assisting Cranfield University (CU) with data collection. The Fresh Produce Consortium is thanked for their support in arranging the on-line survey and publicising this project. The authors are also grateful for those individuals and organisations who so willingly participated in the structured interviews and the on line survey.
8
1. Aim and objectives
This review was commissioned by Defra in late 2011 to understand the drivers of fruit and vegetable
consumption (including potatoes); specifically how factors like price, packaging, taste, appearance and
marketing for example affect demand. The review also examined how these factors interact with income levels
and other socio-economic variables. The review is confined to the UK market, but clearly takes account of the
influence of fruit and vegetable imports. The review was first submitted in May 2012 and then additional data
included in January 2013,May 2013 and October 2013.
A further aim of the review was to investigate demand for different quality requirements, more specifically:
i. Whether there are UK markets for a variety of different quality tiers for fruit and vegetables and how
these compare in terms of value for money, accessibility for those on lower incomes, throughput and
opportunities for growers
ii. What are the key drivers and barriers affecting the demand for different quality requirements of fruit and
vegetables e.g. price, packaging, presentation, appearance, reason for purchase such as to eat fresh
immediately, to keep ‘till ripe, to use in cooking, demographics, seasonality, logistics, retailers and
farming practices?
iii. The impacts of consumers having increased access to lower quality fruit and vegetables
iv. Whether the revised EU marketing standards for fruit and vegetables has had any impact on the
availability of lower quality produce
In addition the review also considered:
v. Potential impacts of changes in availability of fruit and vegetables with different quality standards on
consumption and 5-a-day targets
vi. Whether the same constraints apply to home produced and imported fruit and vegetables, for example
local and in-season produce
vii. The impact and potential barriers in the supply chain
viii. Impacts on wholesale and processing industries and alternative waste streams i.e. animal feed
ix. Socio-economic barriers including consumer education and affordability
9
2. Approach and scope
2.1 Questionnaire design
In addition to published data streams (e.g. Family Food 2009) a series of structured interview questionnaires
(agreed by Defra) were conducted with leading members (e.g. Technical Director level) of the UK fresh
produce industry including many of the leading retailers (n = 5), wholesalers (n = 3), fresh produce suppliers (n
= 11) and other interest groups (e.g. charities, government agencies; n = 4). A different questionnaire design
was used for retailers, wholesalers (Appendix I) and the rest (including suppliers; Appendix II). Only fresh
produce suppliers who specialised in one of the following ten (10) produce types viz. apples, bananas,
strawberries, grapes, onions, potatoes [fresh not processed], tomatoes, cabbage, lettuce, and carrots were
approached. This selection was based on the importance in sales and whether the product(s) has seen
substantive change in consumption since 2003 according to Family Food 2009. Interviews started in October
2011 and were completed in January 2012. Interviews were conducted by at least two members of the
consortium including at least one or both Prof. Leon A. Terry of Cranfield University or Dr Peter Whitehead of
the IGD. Interviews lasted for one hour or longer and were conducted either face-to-face or over the telephone.
Detailed notes were taken from each interview, yet the anonymity of each individual and the organisation which
they represented was assured.
In addition, an online copy of the supplier questionnaire was posted on line by The Fresh Produce Consortium
and competed by additional suppliers (n = 52) and was publicised in the Fresh Produce Journal on 4th November
2011. In summary, a total of 75 respondents either took part in the questionnaires or completed the online
survey.
2.2 Kantar Data and analysis
Weekly, monthly and yearly data were supplied by Kantar (through Defra) on the estimated UK expenditure
and volume at retail purchased from January 2003 to Sept 2011 for the following ten (10) produce types were
includes viz. apples, bananas, strawberries, grapes, onions, potatoes, tomatoes, cabbage, lettuce, and carrots.
Data were further split each into the three quality tiers (premium, standard and value) since quality is not
covered in Family Food or other UK Government surveys. An additional 2011 data set, also supplied by Kantar,
was used to evaluate volume purchased of specific fresh produce [apple, potato and strawberry] according to
employment, social economic grouping, region, gender and age.
10
For comparisons across age, region, employment status and socio economic grouping three independent
variables for each product were created. Each of these was used to find out the proportion of ‘value’, ‘standard’
or ‘premium’ product purchased, as a percentage, out of the total product purchased for each household. Each
household was then assigned the result of the independent variable for each quality tier and the socioeconomic
dependant variables (e.g. age range, employment status and socio-economic grouping). For each dependent
variable, the results were averaged across all samples and histograms produced showing the percentage of
product purchased out of the total annual purchases to observe trends. For apples, 2887 households provided the
necessary data and were considered. For potatoes and strawberries 3072 and 2688 were considered,
respectively. In order to study differences among the dependant variable levels, and due to the nature of the data
sets (non-parametric), several transformations were assessed in order to improve normality and
homoscedasticity with no success. Finally, 1-way non-parametric ANOVA using ranks was performed
(Kruskal-Wallis) in order to identify statistical significant differences between different levels of the
socioeconomic variables. Non parametric each pair comparison using the Wilcoxon method was performed
when differences were found and tables with the correspondent p-values are shown in Annexes 7-9 and 11. In
all cases comparisons were considered significant when at p<0.05. Analyses were performed using JMP 9 (SAS
Institute) and SPSS v.20 (IBM Corporation) statistical packages.
When comparing between sexes two levels were available (Annex 10). Moreover the number of cases for each
level was unbalanced as much more shopping was carried out by females compared to males. For this reason
and to understand their shopping behaviour with regard to each of the quality tiers the total percentage of
purchases was compared in each quality tier for each sex. Comparisons have been made taking the standard
tiers as reference.
To study the total amount of each product purchased per person (as a mean) in households, the total volume of
product purchased was used, and divided by the number of people in the household. All households that did not
buy a certain product were removed. Each dataset was averaged for each of the dependent variable levels (age,
socioeconomic grouping or employment status). The standard error of the mean was computed and plotted.
Statistical analysis was performed using non-parametric ANOVA as described before. Non-parametric each pair
comparisons using the Wilcoxon method p-value tables are shown in Annex 12.
2.3 Limitations of the research
Although most of the major retailers took part in the questionnaire, there was understandably a divergence in
the openness of some with regards to providing detailed information which they deemed to be too commercially
11
sensitive in nature. In addition, the survey set out to collect data from suppliers who specialised in one of the ten
(10) produce types. However, and even though a wide selection of suppliers were contacted and invited to take
part, certain produce types were over-represented as compared to others, reflecting the different willingness of
participants viz. potatoes, apples, strawberries, onions and lettuce suppliers were over represented. No
information was collected from grapes, cabbage or banana suppliers.
The Kantar data on expenditure were not corrected for inflation or population changes.
No consumer research was conducted as part of this work and thus views from retailers, suppliers and other
members of the industry predominate. Data from Kantar and the Food and Expenditure Survey on purchasing
behaviour of different socioeconomic groups, age, gender and region was considered.
2.4 Confidentiality
The identity of interviewees and participants in the on line survey are to remain confidential. Data on identity
of interviewees will be securely held by Cranfield University for a period of two years where upon the
transcripts will be destroyed. The information is thus not available to other parties.
12
3. Markets for fruit and vegetables
3.1 Introduction
Households will choose fresh fruit, vegetables and potatoes in varying quantities for both in and out of home
consumption. In and out of home consumption are distinct markets; in the former, demand is generally direct as
individuals chose fruit and vegetables, whereas in the eating out market demand is indirect because individuals
chose meals in which fruits and vegetables may be components.
In the out of home market and indeed for the increasing ‘ready meal’ market it is not possible to establish with
any ease the purchasing trends for fresh fruit and vegetables. Because the demand for fresh fruit and vegetables
out of home is indirect it is also not possible to identify the main drivers of demand because these will relate to
the whole meal, not its components.
3.2 Retail channels
Products purchased for in-home consumption are generally bought from retailers (a minor quantity is home-
grown). IGD estimate there are 91,509 grocery stores in the UK of which the majority (53%) are convenience
stores. Around 78% of fruit and vegetable purchases come from supermarkets (including hypermarkets and
superstores). The five major multiple retailers: Tesco, Asda, Sainsbury’s, Morrisons and the Co-Op dominate
with over 82% of the ‘major’ retailer market. Other major retailers include Marks & Spencer and Waitrose who
are often considered ‘Premium’ retailers and Aldi and Lidl who are termed ‘Discounters’.
Convenience stores, with sales areas of less than 3000 sq ft also provide fruit and vegetables though these
products account for less than 6% of sales. It is possible to divide the convenience sector into those owned by
the multiple retailers, symbol groups, forecourts and independents. Beyond these it is possible to recognise
traditional retailers (including green grocers), ethnic markets, on-line sales, Farm Shops and Farmers’ Markets.
Together these account for a minor source of fruit and vegetable retail purchases
3.3 Retail quality tiers
There is no uniform approach to quality in the retail market (cf. Annex 1 for more detailed analysis of the term
‘quality’). Instead, each of the multiple retailers has developed a ‘quality position’ in terms of the products they
sell as well as the shopping experience they provide. The retailers will use their ‘quality position’ to
differentiate themselves from each other, to attract particular types of customer to their stores and to develop
13
specifications for their suppliers. These specifications are particularly important for the retailers ‘own label’
ranges including the majority of fruit and vegetables1.
The five major multiple retailers have developed three quality tiers for their fruit and vegetables. These have
various names depending on the retailer (cf. Annex 1) but can be broadly categorised as follows: Premium,
Standard and Basic/Value. These three tiers provide a basis for understanding fruit and vegetable quality across
large parts of the retail market but cannot be applied in every case. It is important to note that some retailers do
not recognise three quality tiers, for example Marks & Spencer and Aldi have just one offer; in this case
positioned at different ends of the quality spectrum.
Even in the retailers that recognise three quality tiers it does not follow that all fruit and vegetables are offered
at every quality level, for example typically bananas are just offered as a standard or value range whereas apples
are commonly sold at all three levels. Indeed, some products may be offered in the Premium tier for only
certain periods because they depend on a particular cultivar (variety) being available in the season.
Some fruit and vegetables have additional branding like Organic or Fair Trade or carry a carbon label or some
other differentiator for example ‘Red Tractor’. These types of branding are not generally used as a quality
attribute, that is the presence or absence of one or another mark does not lead the retailer to automatically assign
that product to a particular quality tier. In other words these attributes have only a secondary influence on the
retailers’ quality positioning for fruit and vegetables.
In the convenience sector (and through internet delivery) the three tier approach to quality is not widely applied
outside of those stores owned by the multiple retailers. All of the major multiples have developed a
convenience offer (or are in the process of doing so) for example Tesco Express/Metro in which they provide
products in each of the three tiers. However, significant differences arise in terms of the ranges and pack-sizes
that are provided. Loose products typically are not sold in these convenience stores. In other parts of the
convenience sector and the remaining retailers, there is little evidence that quality is differentiated in the same
way. Generally, these retailers will rely on the shopping experience or indications that the product is grown
locally, for example, as apparent claims for quality.
3.4 Foodservice channels
Fruit and vegetables eaten out of the home are consumed in a wide range of foodservice outlets but mostly as
part of a meal (and more typically in processed form). The foodservice market is more fragmented than the
retail market with some 259,054 outlets compared to 91,509 grocery stores2. It is usual to break down the 14
foodservice market into the private and public sector. The private sector is further subdivided into restaurants,
Quick Service Restaurants (QSR), Public houses, Hotels, Leisure and Staff Catering while the public sector is
further divided into Health care, Education and Services3. QSR have 26% of all foodservice sales and thereby
are the largest single sector recognised by Horizons. Pubs and Hotels have broadly similar numbers of outlets
(around 45,000 each) but together their market share is only slightly higher than that for QSR. The public sector
has around 26% of all outlets. ‘Take-aways’, where products are purchased from foodservice outlets but eaten
in the home or car are not major sources of fresh fruit, vegetables.
3.5 Foodservice quality tiers
Fruit and vegetables are typically eaten as components of a meal and in processed form. This means that
foodservice operators have more tolerance over the specifications they require, especially for products which
are peeled and where visual appearance has no impact on eating quality. But the nature of this market for
example in terms of consistency and uniformity in relation to menu requirements that can be fixed for periods of
time does lead to specific preferences in respect of size and continuity of supply. However, the three tier
approach to quality that applies in retail is not used in the foodservice market. Instead quality in foodservice is
largely determined by ‘brand positioning’. Brand positioning will include a range of factors including service
levels, outlet type and meal pricing policy.
3.6 Supply chains
The large multiple retailers source the majority of fresh fruit and vegetables (including potatoes) direct from
suppliers. The concentration of fruit and vegetable suppliers has increased over recent years as supermarkets
have endeavoured to vertically integrate their supply chains and reduce cost. There is an increasing trend for
‘direct sourcing’ by some UK retailers where they will procure fresh produce directly from overseas growers
with a view to by-passing UK importers.
There are about 1,200 commercial horticulture growers and about 2,300 potato growers in the UK. These are
generally organised into larger packing/marketing businesses that specialise in particular product types of which
Fresca, G’s Fresh and Produce World are amongst the largest. Some of these businesses own land outside the
UK in order to better provide customers with an all year round supply.
Independent retailers and the majority of foodservice outlets will source their fruit and vegetables from
wholesalers. According to National Association of British Marketing Authorities (NABMA) there are 26
wholesale markets in the UK including a number of specialist fruit and vegetable wholesalers viz. New Covent
15
Garden and New Spitalfields in London. New Spitalfields for example is an important supplier for independent
retailers and a large proportionate of customers are Chinese, Turkish, Asian or other ethnic minorities groups
buying fruit and vegetables for their particular shops and restaurants. In addition there are wholesalers that
supply all types of grocery products and which can be generally split into ‘cash and carry’4 and ‘delivered
wholesale’. Booker is the largest cash and carry wholesaler, others include Bestway, Makro and Costco. Brakes
and 3663 are key delivered foodservice wholesalers while P & H McLane, for example concentrate on
delivering to retailers.
Foodservice chains such as Pret a Manger, Ask, Eat, McDonald’s, and KFC have generally adopted similar
procurement practices to those used by the multiple retailers (centralised buying and distribution). However,
these chains typically work with large, delivered wholesalers to manage their raw material needs.
Many Institutional foodservice suppliers such as schools, prisons, hospitals and aged care facilities have also
by-passed the wholesale markets and focus on delivered wholesalers to provide their raw material requirements.
16
4. Supply and quality specifications
4.1. Introduction
In the fresh produce industry, there are few truly dedicated supply chains; instead the major growers/suppliers
tend to have multiple customers. The advantage of this approach is that it ensures the crop is better utilised.
Typically the way this works is that suppliers have multiple primary customers among the major retailers (and
in some cases foodservice operators). Specific crops and varieties will be grown for a specific primary customer
according to pre-determined planting programmes which are where possible agreed ahead of the season and are
informed by historic data on consumption and other market intelligence. For products where demand is
predictable and is less affected by weather or where extended storage can better ensure extended availability
(e.g. apples, onions and potatoes) these procurement programmes tend to work well. For products where
demand is more volatile then there is an increase risk that procurement programmes fail. Growers reported that
they will usually over programme to ensure that product can always be supplied in full and this may have an
influence on crop utilisation and waste (Terry et al., 2011). One supplier stated that “excess volume is in [their]
commercial interest and that [they] must fulfil orders or risk losing business”. There was a recognition that
over programming can result in increased waste. N.B. that retailer/ supplier comments are anonymous and in italics
Procurement programmes are influenced by planned promotional activity. For strawberries, retailers determine
promotional campaigns and these plans are discussed with suppliers, yet they are based on key dates, e.g. events
in the social calendar viz. Wimbledon and predictable crop flushes and are aimed to maximise crop utilisation.
As the season progresses and crops near maturity allocations can be made between quality tiers and customers.
For example, if a crop grown for the Premium tier fails to meet the desired specification then it may be switched
to the Standard or even Value tier. However, this practise can undermine the differentiation between the quality
tier offerings if noticed or understood by consumers. When a crop does not meet a specification and where there
are limited alternatives for downgrading or alternative sourcing then specifications can be relaxed. One supplier
stated that “the difference between tiers is largely subjective and will vary from time to time” and “variety, sizes
and pack formats can determine tiers”. “[the industry] will shift crop around between tiers depending on
shortage/surplus position” and “specifications will differ by tier but can be fairly flexible depending on volumes
available” and “fruit ‘tiering’ is more resilient as based on variety whereas vegetables and salads are more
difficult to tier though some lend themselves better – asparagus [for example has] no tier[ing]”. One retailer
commented that “lower tier lines are often out-grades from standard lines because of size”.
17
Although specifications are regarded by all retailers as key to defining and differentiating apparent product
quality and are stringently adhered to, there is still some degree of plasticity when availability is stretched (i.e.
as seen in 2011 and 2012 as a result of the poor weather conditions). The advantage of the three tier system
allows for some degree of product differentiation. If the crop does not meet the specification of any primary
customer then it is usually switched to processing or wholesale markets (though increasingly both these
‘secondary’ markets also require products grown to a specification). An example is very large carrots that are
‘out-graded’ from retail but are very suitable for the wholesale/foodservice markets.
It is inevitable that there will be product that does not meet any market specification. The amounts will vary
product by product and season by season (Terry et al., 2011). These products will suffer quality defects
including disease that may make them unsuitable for the human consumption market. These products will be
variously used for animal feed, as feedstock for anaerobic digester (AD) plants and as soil amendments to land.
It is clear from the research that no successful grower intentionally grows lower grade products as the returns
are much less and they will endeavour to utilise crop where there is an economic gain in doing so.
4.2. Retail specifications
Underpinning each of quality tier is a specification which is usually much more detailed than the EU marketing
standards (cf. section 8.1). These specifications are commercially sensitive and retailers have mostly refused to
provide copies for this research. Inevitably, there is often some degree of commonality between specifications
used by many retailers, especially when considering a specific product in a single quality tier. Indeed, many of
the suppliers interviewed supply more than one retailer and the differentiation between specifications is less
than might be assumed. In the main, interviewees reported that specifications are fundamentally based on visual
appearance (e.g. size, shape and colour uniformity) and freedom from defects (e.g. disease, blemish, bruising or
even susceptibility to bruising physiological disorder); however variety and other attributes such as taste and
flavour which are also related to consumer preference (for some products) are also important e.g. apples
attaining threshold firmness and total soluble solids content. One retailer commented that they “will flex
[specifications] on size and other visuals but not on taste”. Specifications are enforced by internal quality
control inspections by suppliers and retail customers. This said, the statistical validity of these inspections is
questionable. Although objective tests are carried out to assess that specifications are being adhered to some
retailers carry out “regular staff blind taste tests and benchmark products against other retailers”. There is
typically little tolerance for severe aesthetic defects even for value lines as it is generally acknowledged that
most consumers are still sensitive when appearance does not meet a minimum threshold level.
18
It is easy to criticise specifications, but it should be acknowledged that non-adherence to most specifications can
markedly influence consumer preference and purchasing decisions. Customer complaints and increasingly other
feedback mechanisms are used to judge whether specifications reflect consumer purchasing behaviour. The
main customer complaints reported by retailers in this research were product and packaging defects, foreign
bodies (e.g. stones in potato packs or caterpillars in broccoli), disease, physiological disorders, product not
lasting its shelf life, and dissatisfaction over flavour not meeting expectations. Many retailers and indeed
suppliers commented that the accuracy of customer complaints was questionable.
Specifications determine the assignment of products to each quality tier, yet it is true that some specifications
for certain product types are solely based on physical attributes such as appearance. This does not mean that
these specifications are not useful as the importance of appearance should not be underestimated (cf. section 7)
Specific examples of interviewees’ comments relating to specifications and UK consumer preferences for
strawberry, apple and lettuce and potato are detailed below. N.B. that suppliers comments are anonymous and in italics
4.2.1 Strawberry
Strawberry specifications are determined by visual appearance (size, shape, fruit colour, glossiness, calyx
condition) and freedom from deflects (incidence of mould, misshapenness, wet and dry bruising) and total
soluble solids (TSS%; often referred to (mistakenly) as Brix). TSS is used by some retailers to differentiate
between premium and standard lines and “indeed breeding programmes have delivered varieties with lower
acid and higher sugar profiles which reflect what consumers want”. Premium lines will usually have higher
TSS values as compared to standard lines. However, it is clear that the objective quality control measurements
used by the UK soft fruit industry are fairly rudimentary (Terry, 2012) and it is “accepted by most retailers that
Brix [TSS%] is not a good measure for flavour”. Acidity, which is an important component of taste is not
measured objectively. Significant change has occurred recently whereby “the different demand drivers for each
quality tier used to be based on variety, but over the last year standard varieties are being switched to premium
when they are eating well. For instance, the variety Jubilee [which is known to have high sugar content (Giné
Bordonaba and Terry, 2009)] is always top tier and Sweet Eve standard, yet when Sweet Eve delivers the same
eating experience as Jubilee then it is switched to top tier”. This statement demonstrates that for strawberries
the division between quality tiers is not just based on appearance and freedom from defects but also on
perceived sweetness. Another supplier stated that “for premium it used to be about berry size and aesthetics but
now is more about variety and sweet flavour, but small berries from premium varieties will be put into standard
range or special packs” and “there is an approved variety list for all quality tiers”. Another supplier reiterated
some of these comments and stated that “variety performance is key to the three tiers and that specifications 19
don’t differ markedly” and that the key demand drivers for premium and value are “eating quality” and “price”,
respectively. This demonstrates that promotional activity which is centred on value is intimately coupled to
demand.
Despite the acknowledgement that attitudes may be changing, price and visual appearance are still critical. One
interviewee reported that “standard [lines] are driven by offers” and “quality is a given [and there] has to be a
promotion to drive sales e.g. half price/two for/ low price (i.e. smaller punnet size)” and that “sales decline
when product is not on offer”.
At the start of the UK season a small proportion of fruit is misshapen. This coincides with primary fruit
especially on the primary truss of cv. Elsanta (still the UK’s main variety) being very prone to being misshapen.
This ‘defect’ has no effect on shelf life or taste and is just a result of problems encountered during fertilisation
of the pistils during flowering, yet the non-uniformity conveys to the consumer that there is a problem with the
fruit. One respondent stated that there may be “market potential [for these misshapen fruit] but only for a short
time period” yet acknowledged that there was a problem in “how to position [these fruit] to the retailers”.
However, another supplier stated that “the lower tier was very tough on quality specifications and that they
were not class II but ‘class 1 ½’” yet “the cv. Elsanta was still the main variety for the standard tier but
misshapen (about 10%) could go into basic tier”. Thus, there seems to be recognition by some retailers that
small or non-uniformly shaped strawberry fruit can be utilised as long as there is clear communication on the
pack e.g. ‘all shapes and sizes’.
UK consumers recognise that visual appearance of strawberry fruit does not always signify good eating quality.
One respondent stated that “some US varieties grown in Spain/Morocco are fine visually but don’t eat well” and
that “UK consumer preference is for softer and sweeter fruit”. This preference differs from some other EU
nations whereby the “German market is very different and consumers are price driven”. This leads to “big
swings in prices and poor continuity for suppliers” such that “[they] don’t work on a programme basis with
German retailers”. These statements may add weight to the argument that where markets are too price sensitive
and not focussed on delivering value, the quality and continuity of supply suffers irreparably.
Consumer attitudes to quality tiers are multifaceted. One interviewee stated that “consumer research suggests
that shoppers believe that value ranges [of strawberries] won’t last shelf life …. fruit will go off”. There
appears, therefore, to be a belief by some consumers that Value lines may be inferior in terms of longevity/shelf
life and may impact home waste. There is, however, no scientific basis for this perception since smaller fruit,
which tend to be assigned to the value ranges, will have a similar shelf life to their larger counterparts. It may be
20
that a campaign convincing customers that Value lines do not mean sub-standard is needed, but it is unclear
whether promoting value lines would be economically sensible for suppliers and retailers alike since the profit
margins are much lower. Promoting Value lines may inevitably cannibalise Standard lines. One respondent
stated that “usually 2-10% of strawberries picked don’t make the quality grade and are dumped on farm. The
reasons for out grading products was that if fruit were damaged or weak i.e. back end of the season then they
won’t make shelf life and [they] want to give consumers 3 days of shelf life (no moulds during that time)”.
4.2.2 Apple
Apple specifications are principally determined by visual appearance (size, shape, fruit colour), internal
condition, TSS and firmness. Interviewees stated that “specifications [for apples] have not changed radically
for a long time and is driven by fruit condition – crispness and juiciness”. The main change has been supplying
firmer apples and this has been demand driven by both consumers and retailers. “Consumers want crunchy and
juicy apples and retailers value firmer apples as it helps prevent in-store waste”. Evidence from the academic
literature has long confirmed that apple firmness is strongly correlated to perceived quality (cf. Johnson et al.,
2002).
Specifications do differ across the three quality tiers for apples sold in the UK. Premium apples are commonly
sold in tray packs, whilst standard and value ranges are sold either loose, prepacked or in polythene bags,
respectively. One respondent stated that “premium and standard lines are all class I at retail, whilst value
apples are not class II but ‘class 1.5’” such that there was “little opportunity for class II fruit and that these
were better assigned for juicing”. Another supplier explained that “quality specifications were not chased
massively between 2008-2009 for value apple lines which were introduced in 2008” and that there “is greater
tolerance on colour and softness for value lines, but no tolerance for visual defects”. All suppliers stated that
premium lines tended to be higher in TSS, were variety specific and were chased by “discerning consumers who
buy according to variety” but that “consumers who chose standard and value lines were not very variety loyal”.
It is clear that skin blemishes on apples do not affect fruit taste and flavour but may affect consumer preferences
and judgement of quality. Specifications tend to be very strict across all tiers for visual appearance. This said,
occasionally specifications have been relaxed in order to increase crop utilisation. For instance, in November
2011 a number of UK apples cv. Cox consignments which were particularly affected by frost in May and
subsequently developed frost-induced skin blemishes when sold (Waitrose, 2011). The fact that they were
‘ugly’ was celebrated and the price reduced, however, it is unclear whether this reaction could be sustained.
21
This said, in 2012-2013 season many retailers lowered specification thresholds. The fact that the price was
reduced reflects that the apples needed to be promoted to be sold.
4.2.3 Lettuce
Specifications for lettuce and other salad crops are principally centred on physical parameters such as size,
shape, density, outer leaf finish and soiling. Respondents commented that “eating quality is not measurable
and photographs support key aspects e.g. internal density” and that “30% variation in head weight was
acceptable to some customers”.
4.2.4 Potato
The quality specifications for fresh potatoes are mainly based on visual appearance viz. size and absence of
defects (skin finish, incidence of sprouting, greening and disease). All suppliers work to an agreed varietal list
with the retailers. Consumer research by the Potato Council found that the appearance of fresh potatoes was the
second most important purchasing priority after price (c.f. Annex 1). Indeed, in the research herein all potato
suppliers interviewed stated that there was a strong and increasing preference by consumers for washed versus
unwashed tubers which demonstrates that perceived quality is related to visual appearance. One supplier
commented that “customers do not complain about skin finish – don’t like it then they don’t buy it – but they do
complain about excessive sprouting/ greening/ wet rots and eating quality”. Skin quality drives waste in store –
retailer target 2% (includes waste and markdowns)”. The importance of visual appearance for potatoes in
determining potato purchase decisions was also confirmed by additional consumer research (Pritchard et al.,
2011). Here, consumers were reported to be put off buying a particular bag of potatoes if there was evidence of
rots, sprouting, and greening. The influence of washing was not tested. Respondents in the aforementioned
WRAP-funded research were also shown images of potatoes with varying degrees of defect (e.g. greening, rot,
scurf, sprouting). This research showed that sprouted potatoes and those with poor skin finish seemed more
likely to be thrown away even though these ‘defects’ have little to no effect on eating quality. This research
confirms, despite popular belief, that many specifications used by retailers do actually reflect consumer
preferences even though they do not affect potato eating quality.
4.3 Wholesaler specifications
Wholesaler markets tend to not enforce specifications like mainstream retail, but still supply a range of
customers demanding a range of fresh produce qualities including: high end customer base (e.g. restaurants),
independent retailers, traditional street markets and ethnic communities.
22
5. Purchasing Trends
5.1 Introduction
. In this report it has not been possible to verify or quantify the fresh component of the total market. There are
good data on retail purchases but for out of home purchases it is not possible to disaggregate the fruit and
vegetable element because these products are bought as part of a meal. Indeed, it is even more difficult to
estimate the proportion that is consumed out of the home.
Overall and in value terms Family Food (2011) estimate that 26% of total food spend (excluding alcoholic
drinks) is on out of the home consumption. However, the volume of fresh fruit, vegetables consumed out of the
home is likely to be significantly less. Horizons suggest that for an ‘average’ product foodservice purchases are
17-18% of retail purchases. Analysis of Family Food data suggests that the volume of fresh fruit and vegetables
consumed out of the home might be closer to 3%. However, such estimates are fraught with difficulty because:
It would be necessary to separate out the components of composite meals like sandwiches;
Data would be required from large institutional caterers;
5.2 Retail
ONS data on household final consumption shows that the UK spent £73.5bn on food in 2010 of which £6.4bn
was spent on fruit (8.8%) and £11.4bn on vegetables (15.5%). Since 2000 the proportion spent on fruit has
increased from 7.6% while the proportion spent on vegetables has fallen from 16.3%.
There are two main data-sources on food purchases. These are discussed more fully in Annex 2. One-off reports
for example from Mintel are also available. Yet, there appears to be a dichotomy between different data sources
on whether fruit and vegetable consumption is actually static or in decline as indicted by Family Food. In this
study, we had access to Kantar data as described in Section 2. Data is as follows and suggests that for some
fruit and vegetables expenditure and volume have either remained stable or even occasionally increased since
2003 to 2011 (Figures 1-3 [data not corrected for inflation or population growth]). As stated, this contradicts
much of the Family Food 2009 data and thus this apparent conflict requires further study and analysis. The
effect of seasonality and thus temporal changes in demand are not fully accounted for in Family Food data.
Family Food data tends to be used by government whereas industry uses Kantar (or similar) as sources of data
(Annex 2). Data do show that the economic crisis in 2008 did have a marked effect, albeit transient, on some
23
quality tiers for some fruits and vegetables, but it is likely that this change was a response from mainstream
retailers against the threat from the ‘rise of the discounters’ (e.g. Aldi).
all tiers
52 w
/e_S
pend
(£) i
n Fr
uit &
veg
0
6300000
7000000
7700000
8400000
9100000
premium
Time (years)
01/01
/05
01/01
/06
01/01
/07
01/01
/08
01/01
/09
01/01
/10
01/01
/11
0
100000
150000
200000
250000
300000
standard
0
6300000
7000000
7700000
8400000
9100000
value
01/01
/05
01/01
/06
01/01
/07
01/01
/08
01/01
/09
01/01
/10
01/01
/11
0
100000
200000
300000
400000
500000
Figure 1a: Yearly spend in selected fruit and vegetables in all tiers (premium, standard and value) between 2003 and 2011 (redrawn using Kantar data) [NB y axis are different]
value
01/01
/05
01/01
/06
01/01
/07
01/01
/08
01/01
/09
01/01
/10
01/01
/11
0
150000
300000
450000
600000
all tiers
52 w
/e_V
olum
e (K
g) in
Fru
it &
veg
0
5400000
5600000
5800000
6000000
6200000 standard
0
5250000
5400000
5550000
premium
Time (years)
01/01
/05
01/01
/06
01/01
/07
01/01
/08
01/01
/09
01/01
/10
01/01
/11
0
30000
60000
90000
120000
Figure 1b: Yearly volume of selected fruits and vegetables consumed in all tiers (premium, standard and value) between 2003 and 2011. (redrawn using Kantar data) [NB y axis are different]
Yearly spend for fruit and vegetables has increased between 2003 and 2011 but has stabilised for
premium and value lines.
Yearly volume for fruit and vegetables has steadily increased between 2003 and 2009 but then
stabilised. A large fall was observed for standard lines around the start of the economic crisis
whereupon a rebound effect was evident in 2010. The volume of value lines increased until 2009 but
then stabilised. 24
Time (years)
01/01
/05
01/01
/06
01/01
/07
01/01
/08
01/01
/09
01/01
/10
01/01
/11
0
15000
60000
80000
100000
120000
01/01
/05
01/01
/06
01/01
/07
01/01
/08
01/01
/09
01/01
/10
01/01
/11
0
20000
40000
60000
80000
52w
/e_S
pend
(£) i
n A
ll fr
uit
0200000
300000
400000
500000
600000
700000
800000
ApplesBananasStrawberriesGrapesTomatoes
all tiers
0200000
300000
400000
500000
600000
700000
800000
premium
standard
value
Figure 2a: Yearly spend in selected fruit [apples, bananas, strawberries, grapes and tomatoes] in all tiers (premium, standard and value) between 2003 and 2011 (redrawn using Kantar data) [NB y axis are different]
01/01
/05
01/01
/06
01/01
/07
01/01
/08
01/01
/09
01/01
/10
01/01
/11
0
20000
40000
60000
80000
100000
52w
/e_V
olum
e (K
g) in
All
frui
t
0
200000
400000
600000
800000all tiers
0
100000
200000
300000500000
600000
700000
Time (years)01
/01/05
01/01
/06
01/01
/07
01/01
/08
01/01
/09
01/01
/10
01/01
/11
0
3000
600015000180002100024000270003000033000 premium
standard
ApplesBananasStrawberriesGrapesTomatoes
value
Figure 2b: Yearly volume of selected fruit [apples, bananas, strawberries, grapes and tomatoes] consumed in all tiers (premium, standard and value) between 2003 and 2011. (redrawn using Kantar data) [NB y axis are different]
Yearly spend for all selected fruit increased between 2003 and 2011 although there were discrepancies
amongst the premium and lower quality tiers for certain lines. For example, premium tomato lines
increased until the economic crisis whereupon they declined. Value lines for selected fruit increased in
response to the economic crisis but then stabilised in 2009.25
Yearly volume for all selected fruit has remained relatively stable between 2003 and 2011 even through
some value lines have increased. A steep decline was observed for apples in response to the economic
crisis but volumes then recovered in 2010.
premiun
Time (years)01
/01/05
01/01
/06
01/01
/07
01/01
/08
01/01
/09
01/01
/10
01/01
/11
010000200003000040000500006000070000
all tiers
52 w
/e_V
olum
e (K
g) in
all
vege
tabl
es
0
100000
200000
3000001400000
1600000standard
0
100000
200000
300000
400000
1500000
value
01/01
/05
01/01
/06
01/01
/07
01/01
/08
01/01
/09
01/01
/10
01/01
/11
0
30000
60000
90000
120000
150000
180000
OnionsPotatoesCabbageLettuceCarrots
Figure 3: Yearly volume of selected vegetables [onions, potatoes, cabbage, lettuce and carrots] consumed in all
tiers (premium, standard and value) between 2003 and 2011. (redrawn using Kantar data) [NB y axis are
different]
Yearly volumes for selected vegetables has remained relatively stable between 2003 and 2011 but there
have been marked changes in premium and value tiers for certain categories. For example, both the
premium and value lines for potatoes have increased from 2006 and 2008, respectively. There has been
no substantial penetration for lettuce in the value tier.
5.3 Trends in quality
Most respondents in this research agreed that there was a real shift in demand for different tiers since the
economic downturn and subsequent recession. A representative comment from one supplier was as follows
who stated that there was a “real polarisation of the market taking place whereby most lines are drifting down
towards the more basic quality tier but [that the] premium tier was also doing well”. Kantar data supports this
view and shows that distinct changes in demand for all three quality tiers (premium, standard and value) for
fruit and vegetables (Figs. 2 and 3). Overall, value lines have tended to take market share away from standard
lines since their wholesale introduction in 2007 - 2009. Premium lines have remained static since 2008 but
26
have held there position for most produce types. They still however represent a minor share of the whole
category. One potato supplier stated that “there has been market polarisation since 2008: general lines have
been declining while value and premium lines are both increasing” and “value increasing due to economy and
premium increase reflects consumers treating themselves rather than eating out”. However, the same supplier
stated that the “net effect has been to de-value the potato category over the last three years”. Specifically
consumers tend to purchase more premium lines for the weekend period whereas basic lines tend to be steady
across the week. This pattern in purchasing behaviour is recognised in some promotions and may reflect the
belief that consumers treat themselves at the weekend and thus are more willing to ‘upgrade’.
For specific fresh produce types the dynamics between the three tiers system for volume and spend have
fluctuated considerably (Figs. 4 and 5). For apples and tomatoes the demand for Value lines has steadily
increased at the expense of Standard lines as shoppers have downgraded and mainstream supermarkets have
responded to the rise in discount supermarkets offerings. For apple, the volume of premium lines peaked in
2008 yet has remained flat thereafter. This indicates the continued willingness of some consumers to purchase
apple fruit which are differentiated from standard lines on the bases of larger fruit size and higher total soluble
solids (TSS) content (cf. section 4.2.2) In contrast, for premium lines of tomato volumes peaked in 2008 and
have now declined to 2006 levels; this perhaps being a reflection of both the economic recession and extended
downturn and also the improvement in quality of value lines.
27
all tiers52
w/e
_Spe
nd (£
) in
App
les
0600000
650000
700000
750000
premium
Time (years)01
/01/05
01/01
/06
01/01
/07
01/01
/08
01/01
/09
01/01
/10
01/01
/11
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
standard
0600000
650000
700000
750000
value
01/01
/05
01/01
/06
01/01
/07
01/01
/08
01/01
/09
01/01
/10
01/01
/11
0
10000
20000
30000
40000value
01/01
/05
01/01
/06
01/01
/07
01/01
/08
01/01
/09
01/01
/10
01/01
/11
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
all tiers
52 w
/e_V
olum
e (K
g) in
App
les
0450000
480000
510000
540000 standard
0450000
480000
510000
540000
premium
Time (years)
01/01
/05
01/01
/06
01/01
/07
01/01
/08
01/01
/09
01/01
/10
01/01
/11
0
2000
4000
6000
value
01/01
/05
01/01
/06
01/01
/07
01/01
/08
01/01
/09
01/01
/10
01/01
/11
0
40000
80000
120000
standard
0500000
550000
600000
650000all tiers
52 w
/e_S
pend
(£) i
n B
anan
as
0500000
550000
600000
650000
premium
Time (years)
01/01
/05
01/01
/06
01/01
/07
01/01
/08
01/01
/09
01/01
/10
01/01
/11
0
40
80
120
all tiers
52 w
/e_V
olum
e (K
g) in
Ban
anas
0
500000
600000
700000
800000
value
01/01
/05
01/01
/06
01/01
/07
01/01
/08
01/01
/09
01/01
/10
01/01
/11
0
20000
40000
60000
80000
100000
standard
0
500000
600000
700000
800000
premium
Time (years)01
/01/05
01/01
/06
01/01
/07
01/01
/08
01/01
/09
01/01
/10
01/01
/11
0
50
100
150
all tiers
52 w
/e_S
pend
(£) i
n St
raw
berr
ies
0
300000
400000
500000
premium
Time (years)01
/01/05
01/01
/06
01/01
/07
01/01
/08
01/01
/09
01/01
/10
01/01
/11
0
5000
10000
15000
standard
0
300000
400000
500000
value
01/01
/05
01/01
/06
01/01
/07
01/01
/08
01/01
/09
01/01
/10
01/01
/11
0
5000
10000
15000value
01/01
/05
01/01
/06
01/01
/07
01/01
/08
01/01
/09
01/01
/10
01/01
/11
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
all tiers
52 w
/e_V
olum
e (K
g) in
Str
awbe
rrie
s
070000
80000
90000
100000standard
070000
80000
90000
100000
premium
Time (years)01
/01/05
01/01
/06
01/01
/07
01/01
/08
01/01
/09
01/01
/10
01/01
/11
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
28
all tiers
52 w
/e_S
pend
(£) i
n G
rape
s
0300000
400000
500000
600000
premium
Time (years)01
/01/05
01/01
/06
01/01
/07
01/01
/08
01/01
/09
01/01
/10
01/01
/11
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
standard
0300000
400000
500000
600000
value
01/01
/05
01/01
/06
01/01
/07
01/01
/08
01/01
/09
01/01
/10
01/01
/11
0
5000
10000
15000
20000value
01/01
/05
01/01
/06
01/01
/07
01/01
/08
01/01
/09
01/01
/10
01/01
/11
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
all tiers
52 w
/e_V
olum
e (K
g) in
Gra
pes
0140000
160000
180000
200000
220000 standard
0140000
160000
180000
200000
220000
premium
Time (years)01
/01/05
01/01
/06
01/01
/07
01/01
/08
01/01
/09
01/01
/10
01/01
/11
0
250
500
750
1000
all tiers
52 w
/e_S
pend
(£) i
n T
omat
oes
0
500000
550000
600000
650000
700000
premium
Time (years)01
/01/05
01/01
/06
01/01
/07
01/01
/08
01/01
/09
01/01
/10
01/01
/11
060000
80000
100000
120000
standard
0400000
450000
500000
550000
value
01/01
/05
01/01
/06
01/01
/07
01/01
/08
01/01
/09
01/01
/10
01/01
/11
0
10000
20000
30000value
01/01
/05
01/01
/06
01/01
/07
01/01
/08
01/01
/09
01/01
/10
01/01
/11
05000
10000
15000
20000
all tiers
52 w
/e_V
olum
e (K
g) in
Tom
atoe
s
0240000
245000
250000
255000 standard
0
200000
210000
220000
230000
premium
Time (years)
01/01
/05
01/01
/06
01/01
/07
01/01
/08
01/01
/09
01/01
/10
01/01
/11
0
20000
25000
30000
Figure 4: Yearly spend and volume consumed of selected fruit in all tiers (premium, standard and value)
between 2003 and 2011 (redrawn using Kantar data) [NB y axis are different]
29
all tiers
52 w
/e_S
pend
(£) i
n O
nion
s
0
150000
180000
210000
240000
premium
Time (years)
01/01
/05
01/01
/06
01/01
/07
01/01
/08
01/01
/09
01/01
/10
01/01
/11
0
1000
2000
3000
standard
0
150000
180000
210000
240000
value
01/01
/05
01/01
/06
01/01
/07
01/01
/08
01/01
/09
01/01
/10
01/01
/11
0
3000
6000
9000
12000
15000
18000 value
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
all tiers
52 w
/e_V
olum
e (K
g) in
Oni
ons
0
180000
200000
220000standard
0
180000
200000
220000
premium
Time (years)
0
300
600
900
all tiers
52 w
/e_S
pend
(£) i
n Po
tato
es
0700000
800000
900000
1000000
1100000
premium
Time (years)01
/01/05
01/01
/06
01/01
/07
01/01
/08
01/01
/09
01/01
/10
01/01
/11
0
15000
30000
45000
60000
standard
0600000
700000
800000
900000
1000000
1100000
value
01/01
/05
01/01
/06
01/01
/07
01/01
/08
01/01
/09
01/01
/10
01/01
/11
0
15000
30000
45000
60000value
01/01
/05
01/01
/06
01/01
/07
01/01
/08
01/01
/09
01/01
/10
01/01
/11
0
40000
80000
120000
160000
all tiers
52 w
/e_V
olum
e (K
g) in
Pot
atoe
s0
1500000
1550000
1600000
1650000
1700000standard
01400000
1450000
1500000
1550000
premium
Time (years)01
/01/05
01/01
/06
01/01
/07
01/01
/08
01/01
/09
01/01
/10
01/01
/11
0
20000
40000
60000
all tiers
52 w
/e_S
pend
(£) i
n C
abba
ge
075000
80000
85000
90000
95000
premium
Time (years)01
/01/05
01/01
/06
01/01
/07
01/01
/08
01/01
/09
01/01
/10
01/01
/11
0
100
200
300
400
500
standard
075000
80000
85000
90000
95000
value
01/01
/05
01/01
/06
01/01
/07
01/01
/08
01/01
/09
01/01
/10
01/01
/11
0
500
1000
1500
2000 value
01/01
/05
01/01
/06
01/01
/07
01/01
/08
01/01
/09
01/01
/10
01/01
/11
0
500
1000
1500
2000
all tiers
52 w
/e_V
olum
e (K
g) in
Cab
bage
075000
80000
85000
90000standard
075000
80000
85000
90000
premium
Time (years)01
/01/05
01/01
/06
01/01
/07
01/01
/08
01/01
/09
01/01
/10
01/01
/11
0
50
100
150
all tiers
52 w
/e_S
pend
(£) i
n L
ettu
ce
0
160000
180000
200000
220000
premium
Time (years)01
/01/05
01/01
/06
01/01
/07
01/01
/08
01/01
/09
01/01
/10
01/01
/11
0
1000
1500
2000
standard
0
160000
180000
200000
value
01/01
/05
01/01
/06
01/01
/07
01/01
/08
01/01
/09
01/01
/10
01/01
/11
0
3000
6000
9000
12000 value
01/01
/05
01/01
/06
01/01
/07
01/01
/08
01/01
/09
01/01
/10
01/01
/11
0
1500
3000
4500
6000
all tiers
52 w
/e_V
olum
e (K
g) in
Let
tuce
0
90000
95000
100000
105000 standard
085000
90000
95000
100000
105000
premium
Time (years)01
/01/05
01/01
/06
01/01
/07
01/01
/08
01/01
/09
01/01
/10
01/01
/11
0100
200
300
400
500
30
all tiers
52 w
/e_S
pend
(£) i
n C
arro
ts
0140000
175000
210000
245000
premium
Time (years)01
/01/05
01/01
/06
01/01
/07
01/01
/08
01/01
/09
01/01
/10
01/01
/11
0
1500
3000
4500
6000
7500
standard
0140000
160000
180000
200000
220000
value
01/01
/05
01/01
/06
01/01
/07
01/01
/08
01/01
/09
01/01
/10
01/01
/11
0
6000
12000
18000
24000
30000value
01/01
/05
01/01
/06
01/01
/07
01/01
/08
01/01
/09
01/01
/10
01/01
/11
0
20000
40000
60000
all tiers
52 w
/e_V
olum
e (K
g) in
Car
rots
0
280000
300000
320000standard
0
255000
270000
285000
premium
Time (years)01
/01/05
01/01
/06
01/01
/07
01/01
/08
01/01
/09
01/01
/10
01/01
/11
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
Figure 5: Yearly spend and volume consumed of selected vegetables in all tiers (premium, standard and value)
between 2003 and 2011 (redrawn using Kantar data) [NB y axis are different]
The evidence gathered suggests that further analysis is required to fully understand how temporal
fluxes in volume and spend of specific fresh produce types reflect changes in consumer attitudes or
preference and whether they are related to availability, seasonality and product differentiation
(quality tiers).
5.4 Foodservice
According to Horizons the value of sales in the UK’s foodservice sector in 2011 was £42bn, a figure that has
remained the same in real terms since 2008. While sales of food and beverage for out of home consumption
have risen since 2003, after taking account of inflation there had been a real decline which is likely to continue
into at least 2012.
Data from Family Food shows that the amount of food eaten out is on a long term downward trend (Family
Food data are not comparable with Horizons data for example the former excludes institutional caterers but
includes meals eaten in other households). Measured in grams, the amount of eating out was 15% lower in 2009
than in 2006. In terms of money spent in actual prices (not adjusted for inflation) it was 1.8% lower at £11.33
per person per week for all food and alcoholic drinks.
It is not possible to directly compare retail and foodservice trends for fresh fruit and vegetables because of the
large component of processed food and composite meals eaten out of the home. However, the Table below
shows category data and illustrates the declining market.
31
Table 1: UK eating out purchased quantities of fruit and vegetables (grams per person per week)
Category 2006 2007 2008 2009 % change 2006-2009
Fresh and processed potatoes
72 67 66 65 -10.4
Fresh and processed fruit 15 14 13 12 -20.0
Vegetables 30 29 29 28 -7.1
Salads 19 17 19 17 -12.2
Source: Family Food, 2009
More recent information from the on sector trends, which take account of the continued economic downturn, are
contained in commercial reports. The evidence gathered suggests:
Takeaways and fast food outlets are faring better than other types of consumer foodservice by providing
convenience at lower prices;
Bars/pubs face changes in consumer habits on drinking and many have introduced more food to reduce
dependency on drink sales;
Independent and chained restaurants have been hardest hit with reduced footfall and increased costs
leading to more promotions particular from the chains though certain niches including ‘top end’
restaurants are doing better.
32
6. Drivers and determinants of demand for fresh produce
6.1 Introduction
There are two general approaches that are used to understand the factors which drive or inhibit demand for fresh
fruit and vegetables: we have termed these commercial and analytical. Commercial approaches generally start
from understanding consumer behaviour using omnibus surveys, focus groups and other methods. The aim by
those who undertake the work is to sell more by developing more targeted/segmented marketing. Such
approaches will use current data and are generally confidential to the retailers and suppliers conducting the
work. Analytical approaches include all academic analyses which generally use published or survey data that
could be designed to test particular consumption theories or support policy development. These approaches tend
to use national statistics and make the results publicly available.
6.2 Commercial approaches
Marketing approaches aimed at understanding demand generally aim to identify who is buying what products
and what drives their purchasing decisions. For fresh fruit and vegetables this can only be done for the retail
market. The main commercial approach is to divide the market up into different segments. There are many
different ways to segment a market for example using life-styles (for example ‘price sensitive’, ‘convenience’,
‘healthy’) or life-stages (for example ‘young adults’, ‘families’, ‘pensioners’) and such approaches are used
variously by businesses involved in the marketing of these products.
The focus of the present study was on ten (10) products and to properly understand the drivers of demand, each
should be considered in turn because they may be bought by different people for different reasons in different
ways. For example, some products may appeal to elderly people while others more to families; some products
may be bought as part of a weekly shop while others are bought on impulse or according to changes in seasonal
eating habits and availability. These studies might also try to understand the way shoppers shop, the changing
composition of their ‘shopping basket’, and the impact of various in-store influences.
There is a considerable amount of shopper-based research that is publicly available. The majority of this
research is ‘generic’ in nature because it focuses on understanding aggregate choices across all grocery
products. A summary of this research is included at Annex 3. Not surprisingly shoppers say that price is
currently the most important driver of product choice.
33
A more detailed and category specific examination of fresh fruit and vegetable demand has been published by
Mintel in early 2011. This work focused on the performance of the market rather than understanding demand
drivers but showed:
The vast majority of consumers choose fresh (as opposed to tinned or frozen) fruit and vegetables
seeing a 23% growth between 2005 and 2010;
Male consumers feel pressurised into eating fruit and vegetables while female consumers eat fruit and
vegetables as an alternative to snacks such as chocolate;
Promotional activity is a driver for most consumers especially those in larger households.
6.2.1 Example of consumer analysis - potato demand drivers
The most detailed consumer analysis for any fresh produce type was published by the Potato Council (2011).
The summary below is derived from reports and presentations which they have provided and for which the
research team gratefully acknowledge. No other evidence-based consumer research is available for other fresh
produce types.
Potato market performance
The fresh potato market is worth around £1 billion. This market grew in value by 1.5% between
February 2010/2011 but volumes fell by -0.9% (Kantar). Potatoes are bought by 96% of households.
Fresh potatoes are dominated by the pre-packed format. Loose potatoes are bought by less than half of
all households. Pre-packed white varieties dominate and have grown their volume share to over 61% of
fresh potatoes.
The pre-pack main crop accounts for more than 60% of the volume of the fresh potato sector but only
just over half of the value. Pre-pack new potatoes and pre-pack bakers are the other main types.
Premium potato sales held up well over the recession and during the later months of 2010 sales growth
was greater than the Basic tier. Sales of the Basic tier declined during 2009 and the early months of 2010
but are increasing again. This is confirmed by more recent Kantar data (Figs. 3 and 5)
34
Shopper priorities when purchasing potatoes
The main purchase priority is stated as price followed by appearance, variety and pack size.
Source: Potato Council 2010
Shoppers aged over 45 accounted for almost half of all potato purchases. This is corroborated in section
6.4.5 and Annex 11-2. Younger age groups under-index on potatoes compared with the main grocery
shop
The main motivators driving potato consumption include a) Favourite, health and naturally complementing food
and b) Filling, quick to cook and being eaten for habit
When shoppers buy potatoes there are discernible and different shopping missions behind their choices.
When it comes to the point of decision-making, four in every 10 shoppers decide to buy potatoes only
after they have entered the store with a further three out of 10 making their minds up to buy potatoes
only on the day of purchase.
Standard everyday potatoes are often bought at the main shop. Baking potatoes feature when shoppers
are buying to eat them on the day of purchase while new potatoes or salad potatoes are bought when
there is a special occasion – the likelihood being they can be bought as much in a supermarket as in a
convenience store.
Value not price drive potato purchase decisions
Half of shoppers don’t know how much they pay for potatoes when they have just bought them. This
applies across all retail formats and it applies similarly by life-stage.
35
In the past two years (2010-2011) there has been a significant decline in the volume of potatoes sold on
promotion – less than 40% in 2010 compared with about half of total volumes in 2008. The most
significant reduction has been in the amount of potatoes sold under temporary price reduction
promotions.
The evidence over the last four years suggests that both main crop and new potatoes are not price
sensitive. Shoppers say that if potatoes were cheaper they would be unlikely to buy more.
For the Premium tier more could be made of provenance. In the Standard tier consumers can be
encouraged to trade up from ‘generic’ whites as 81% of shoppers say they want to know more about
different varieties of potatoes.
6.3 Analytical approaches
Academic research has focused on analysing the determinants of fruit and vegetable intake by individuals or
households. These have attempted to relate intakes to socio-demographic, socio-economic, psychological or
sensory variables or more restrictively to compare consumption across demographic or socio-economic groups.
More sophisticated work has been undertaken to identify sources of independent variation in fruit and vegetable
consumption and to quantify the magnitude of the effect exerted by a particular causal variable. The most recent
published analytical work and that from the Food and Expenditure Survey to identify variables that drive fresh
fruit and vegetable demand shows that:
Women consume more fruit and vegetables than men and maybe are attitudinally better disposed to
incorporating fruit and vegetables in their diets;
Black and Asian ethnic groups consume more fruit and vegetables than the general population;
Increased household size is found to negatively impact fruit and vegetable consumption.
Food and Expenditure Survey shows that increased income and educational attainment also boosted fruit and
vegetable consumption although the income effect appears small. However the research found that the influence
of these variables is generally weak at lower levels of intake. Although economic circumstances have changed
considerably in recent years the conclusions from this work provide a useful reference point.
6.4 Discussion of key drivers of fruit and vegetable demand
Shopper studies identify price as the key driver while academic work stresses demographics and life-styles over
income and education. Neither approach sheds light on how these drivers affect the demand for different quality
36
tiers. Each of these drivers can be considered in more detail in order to understand the strength of their
respective influence.
Retailers were asked to rank in order of importance the top drivers of fruit and vegetable demand in the market
and generally ranked price, promotion and availability as the three most important, respectively. However, other
factors were also considered important including the “positive effect that celebrity chefs might make in
promoting/endorsing a product or meal [often colloquially coined the Delia or Oliver effect], although this
could be being overdone” and “the negative effect of food scares like the 2011 German E. coli crisis”. Premium
end retailers and those referring to premium lines tended to report that flavour and taste were more important
than price and “eating quality and deals [promotions] drive demand as it ensures that customers return” and
that “when eating quality falls e.g. shoulder of the season or adverse weather conditions then sales drop”. One
retailer suggested that “tomatoes, apples, bananas and potatoes are the four key high penetration areas that
customers generally use as a barometer of quality”
6.4.1 Price
It is recognised that since about 2006 food has become less affordable in household budgets; that is food prices
have increased faster than the general rate of inflation as measured by the CPI. Taking 2005 as the base
(CPI=100) it can be seen that food has become relatively more expensive (an index of 128.1 for food compared
with an index of 114.5 for all items) but within food, fruit is relatively less expensive while vegetables have
become relatively more expensive (Table 2). The most significant increase in the price of fruit occurred
between 2009 and 2010 while the most significant increase in the price of vegetables occurred between 2007
and 2008. Both the increase in prices and their relative shifts could impact demand. Economists use the term
elasticity to measure the responsiveness of demand to changes in price or incomes. The available, though
somewhat dated evidence, suggest that price increases will lead to small reductions in demand while increases
in incomes lead to small increases in demand. It could be argued that fruit and some salads are more responsive
to price changes than vegetables and that different fruits and vegetables will react very differently – but the
econometric evidence to back this up has not been carried out. One respondent suggested that “demand for
fruits and vegetables is elastic and inelastic, respectively. So discount price of some fruit will increase sales
significantly as most fruit is aspirational. So discount vegetables then no sales response – consumers trade out
of Class I”. If true, then this statement reveals that the demand for fruits versus vegetables may be very
different such that this dichotomy could be further investigated.
37
If shoppers are strongly influenced by prices then when prices increase it is expected that demand will reduce.
Over the period 2000-2005 purchases of fruit and vegetables in general increased (though not every single fruit
or vegetable did so). Fruit was relatively more expensive in 2002-3 than food in general but this did not impact
purchases. This suggests that while there might be a relationship between price and demand it has not been
straightforward and that other factors can also exert a strong if not more powerful influence. Changing
household incomes may be one of these factors.
Table 2: Changes in the CPI from 2000 to 2010 for all items compared with food, fruit and vegetables (source:
ONS).
Reports in ‘The Grocer’ (March 2011) referring to the Mintel research indicates that 70% of consumers across
all age and income groups have noticed that fruit and vegetable prices are going up. According to Mintel,
‘shoppers were cutting back on fruit and vegetable consumption due to a combination of real price increases
and a difficult to shift perception that fresh produce was pricey’. Indeed, one respondent stated that “price is an
issue for all retailers and they benchmark themselves against each other but [that it was] difficult to know who
is a price setter” and “that during periods in this summer [2011] some retailers sold products at a less price
paid”.
6.4.2 Impact of household incomes on purchasing of quality tiers
Research by the IFS indicates that in the three years from 2008 to 2011 real household incomes have fallen by
1.6%. According to the IFS, this represents the first time that incomes have fallen over a three year period since
the three years from 1990 to 1993 and the biggest drop in living standards since 1980-83. The most important
contributory factors are the failure of earnings to keep pace with inflation and lower than usual interest received 38
from savings. The research expects household incomes to be below their 2008 level in 2013. Other evidence
supports the view that consumer spending power has been declining at least since late 2009 and this may have
had an effect on the observed rise in sales of value lines for some fruits and vegetables (Figs. 1-5).
Consumers can adjust to reduced incomes in a variety of ways but until very recently have continued to buy the
same quantity of food largely because it is regarded as a necessity with few if any alternatives, though in 2011 a
decline in the volume of food purchased has been reported. Individuals are changing their behaviours in respect
of food in a number of important ways. The following trends are evident since 2009 which will impact on fruit
and vegetable purchases.
Some shoppers have switched part or all of their purchases from the major multiple retailers in favour of
the ‘Discounters’ like Aldi and Lidl who have seen their overall share of the market grow. IGD research
suggests that shoppers perceive the Discounters fresh produce range to be limited though of high quality
and low price and that permanent special offers were a particular attraction.
In response to the increasing market share of the Discounters the major multiple retailers have increased
the number of promotions and introduced value lines (Figs. 2 & 3) for a wide range of products (a
response also adopted by the ‘high end’ retailers, for example Waitrose ‘Essential’ lines). However, the
impact of promotions on fruit and vegetable demand is difficult to determine (see below).
Shoppers have changed the composition of their shopping baskets to cheaper items, fewer items and
smaller pack sizes. This manifests itself in a variety of ways including trading down from higher value
to lower value products of the same type (for example a tomato on the vine to a loose one – Standard to
Value; Figs. 4 and 5) to switching products from a more to a less expensive type. Some shoppers will
have also substituted products outside of the fresh categories (e.g. fresh potatoes to processed potatoes).
Shoppers report that they are more likely to search for bargains and take advantage of ‘offers’; to swap to
cheaper or supermarket own brands and to change where they buy food from. These shifts in shopping
behaviour that have come about because of the squeeze on household incomes might not in themselves cause a
reduction in fruit and vegetable purchases. On the other hand, shoppers responses to rising fuel costs for
example which have benefited convenience retailers might result in decreased demand because shopper
perceive the convenience offer to be limited and of poorer quality. Likewise, the impact of internet shopping on
fruit and vegetable purchasing behaviour needs further research.
Reductions in household incomes cannot explain the observed falls in fresh fruit and vegetable consumption as
reported by Family Food. For example the evidence shows that there has been a long term decline in purchases 39
of fresh green vegetables and fresh potatoes for periods during which household incomes were rising. Within
the apple fruit category a long term decline has been seen (though the overall consumption of fruit has
increased) and this trend also cannot be explained by changes in household incomes or by the price of apples.
The decline in mainstay fresh produce types (e.g. potatoes and apples) is likely to be as a result of increase
choice within the entire fresh produce category and substitutions outside the category.
Contrary to that previously reported in Family Food and Food and Expenditure survey where
consumption of fruit and vegetables declined with lower social economic groupings, additional
2011 Kantar data analysis in this report demonstrated that employment status, region and social
economic groupings (SEG) seem to have affected some but not all purchasing behaviour across
tiers for apple (Annex 7-1, 8-1, 9-1, 10, 11-1, 12-1), potato (Annex 7-2, 8-2, 9-2, 10, 11-2, 12-2) and
even strawberry (7-3, 8-3, 9-3, 10, 11-3, 12-3).
Note: Social economic groupings (SEG) classifications are based on the occupation of the head of the
household as described by the National Statistics Socio-economic Classification (NS-SEC) as follows: (A)
Higher managerial, administrative or professional; (B) Intermediate managerial, administrative or
professional; (C1) Supervisory or clerical and junior managerial, administrative or professional; (C2)
Skilled manual workers; (D) Semi and unskilled manual workers; (E) Casual or lowest grade workers,
pensioners, and others who depend on the welfare state for their income, this also includes students.
6.4.3 Impact of employment status and socioeconomic grouping (SEG) on purchasing of quality tiers [potato,
apple and strawberry]
Employment status and SEG not only affect household income and dietary culture, but also the opportunities to
purchase fruit and vegetables due to time constraints. Drawing on Kantar 2011 data analysis the following were
discovered:
For apple, significantly higher purchases in both standard and value tiers were observed for the ‘over 30
hrs’ and ‘retired’ groups followed by people working ‘8-29Hrs’ and ‘Not working’. All other groups
(‘Under 8 hrs’, ‘Unemployed’ and ‘Full time Education’) purchased significantly lower amounts (Annex
7-1).
For potato and strawberry, significantly higher purchases in all tiers were observed for the ‘over 30 hrs’
and ‘retired’ groups followed by people working ‘8-29Hrs’ and ‘Not working’. ‘Under 8 hrs’,
‘Unemployed’ and ‘Full time Education’ groups purchased significantly lower amounts (Annex 7-2 and
7-3).
40
Across all quality tiers SEG-A and C1s purchased significantly the lowest and highest amounts of
apples, potatoes and strawberries, respectively (Annex 8-1, 8-2 and 8-3).
There was no significant difference between C2, B, D, E for lower tier potatoes and strawberries.
(Annex 8-2 and 8-3). For apples lower tier, SEG-B and C2 were significantly lower than C1 but
significantly higher than D and E (Annex 8-1).
Overall this data provides evidence that employment status has a significant effect on fruit and vegetable
purchasing with those working ‘Under 8 hrs’, ‘Unemployed’ or in ‘Full time Education’ purchasing
significantly lower amounts of standard and value lines compared to those in full time employment or
retired groups. With regard to the premium tier significant differences were only found for
‘Unemployed’ or in ‘Full time Education’; again both groups purchasing significantly the lowest
amounts. However, the purchasing of lower tier fruit and vegetables tended to not be as influenced by
SEG and no clear differences in purchase trends between tiers was observed.
6.4.4 Impact of region on purchasing of quality tiers [potato, apple and strawberry]
The region within which a household resides will influence household income, social economic grouping,
availability to fresh produce (urban vs. rural) and dietary culture. Drawing on Kantar 2011 data analysis the
following were discovered:
For apples and potatoes, there were little differences in purchasing behaviour between regions across
quality tiers (Annex 9-1 and 9-2).
In all tiers significantly higher percentages of apples, potatoes and strawberries were purchased in the
London and Midlands (Annex 9-1, 9-2 and 9-3).
In all tiers lower percentages of apples and potatoes were purchased in the North East and South West
regions (Annex 9-1 and 9-2).
A slight increase in the purchase of premium apples was observed in Scotland and South regions when
comparing with the other tiers (Annex 9-1).
For strawberries, the lowest proportion of value strawberries when compared to standard and premium
lines was observed in Scotland whilst the purchase of premium strawberries was lower in Yorkshire,
Lancashire and Wales and Southwest (Annex 9-3).
Overall this data provides evidence that region had a minimal effect on purchasing behaviour across
quality tiers.
41
6.4.5 Impact of age, gender and ethnicity on purchasing of quality tiers [potato, apple and strawberry]
Population growth has increased by 9% between 1983 and 2008. At the same time life expectancy has increased
with the result that the population contains a higher proportion of elderly people and has become substantially
more diverse comprising a greater mix of ethnic groups. Natural change was more important than migration for
population growth in the years to 1999 but from 2000 to 2007 net immigration was the biggest driver of
population change. In addition, more people are also choosing to live in single person households the number of
which has risen by 73%. According to Family Food 2009: i) Purchases of fruit increase with age – with the
average varying from 1.3 to 2.4 portions per person per day depending on age, ii) purchases of vegetables
increase with age up to seventy years old, iii) Single person households have high purchases at 180 grams of
fruit per person per day, 50% more than any other household composition, iv) households with three or more
adults and no children purchase on average less than one portion of fruit per person per day. When apple,
strawberry and potato were analysed individually using Kantar 2011 data the following were discovered
For apples, potatoes and strawberries the lowest average purchases for lower and standard lines were
registered for the ‘80 and over’ and then ‘under 30’ age groups (Annex 11-1, 11-2 and 11-3)
For apples, purchasing behaviour of different age groups did not significant differ across all quality tiers
with the lowest average purchases again registered for the ‘80 and over’ and ‘under 30’ age groups
(Annex 11-1)
For potatoes, the ‘50-59’ and ‘60-69’ age groups purchased significantly more premium potatoes
compared to all other age ranges (Annex 11-2)
For strawberries, purchases of value lines were significantly higher for the ’40-49’ age group and
progressively decreased with youth and age, respectively. (Annex 11-3)
Male shoppers bought 2.09% less premium and 1.32% more value apples, respectively than female
consumers [taking as reference the standard quality tier].
In contrast, male shoppers bought 0.85% more premium and 2.24% less value potatoes.
For strawberries, male consumers purchased 4.63% more premium fruit compared to standard lines.
Overall this data provides evidence that those on the extremities of age groupings ( ‘80 and over’ and
‘under 30’ age groups) tended to purchase less fruit and vegetables in the lower quality tiers and that
male shoppers’ behaviour was more driven by premium lines for certain fresh produce types.
42
From the structured questionnaire one wholesaler commented that “shoppers from ethnic minorities tended to
be less influenced by visual appearance [than the mainstream population] and valued intrinsic attributes more -
like flavour and taste”.
The discrepancy in demand drivers for fruit and vegetables amongst different ethnic groups may
warrant further research as it may be related to a more matriarchal control of food purchases
within an extended family and minorities not being targeted, exposed or influenced as much by
strategic marketing campaigns instigated by multiple retailers.
6.4.6 Promotions
Promotions are being used widely by retailers to increase the affordability of fruit and vegetables as well as
attract new customers (and stop customer defecting to other stores). In this sense they are part of the discussion
about price/value and can increase footfall.
UK grocery retailing has become significantly more promotional since 2008. According to IGD the proportion
of promotions in the value of sales has risen from 31% in the year to January 2009 to 34% in the year to January
2010. Data on the extent of promotions and their type by different retailers is shown in Figure 6. The high levels
of promotional activity at the end of 2009 have also been sustained into 2010. Although it is difficult to
distinguish the categories for which promotional activity is greatest it is clear that the general trends shown
below applies equally to fruit and vegetables.
43 Tesco Asda Sainsbury’s Morrisons Somerfield Waitrose Cooperative Iceland
Figure 6: Percentage change in promotions and their type by different retailers [Source: Kantar Jan 2009 - Jan
2010]
‘The Grocer’ article referred to the above and reported that its own research has shown that the big four
retailers and Waitrose were on average running nearly 40% more fresh produce promotions in 2010 than in
2008 (Table 3).
Table 3: Evidence of promotional increase by major retailer
Supermarket 2008 2010 % change
Asda 338 812 140
Morrisons 93 474 410
Sainsbury’s 927 1121 21
Tesco 934 1000 2
Waitrose 271 511 89
Source: Mail On-line quoting Mintel Research
The promotional mix has also changed with the emphasis shifting towards price reduction mechanics and away
from ‘buy one get one frees’ (BOGOFS) and multi-buys promotions (Terry et al., 2011). Retailers continue to
employ a wide variety of promotions and innovate with new offer types to target specific shopper requirements.
However, within the current research there was some discrepancy between suppliers on whether decisions on
promotions were jointly made between the retailer and supplier or were imposed solely by the retailer. It was
also clear that in times of unforeseen abundance of a product line the retailer will be pushed by the supplier to
instigate a promotional activity. Since most grower and suppliers understand their cropping and availability
profiles then they in conjunction with retailers produce pre-season marketing plans with retailers based on
projected availability of product. Yet, it was recognised that some retailers were able to respond more quickly
and be more amenable than others to promotion requests made by suppliers. Indeed, there was frustration
voiced by some suppliers over the reluctance or inability of some retailers to turn off promotions when
availability was becoming limited. It is likely that the success or otherwise of a promotional campaign may be
more problematic for some products (e.g. strawberries and lettuce) if demand drivers such as weather are not
forecasted accurately such that they do not coincide with promotional campaigns.
44
The effectiveness of fruit and vegetable promotions on demand is difficult to analyse. For example, promotions
are usually time limited and are traditionally used to celebrate the season and clear ‘gluts’. Where flushes or
gluts are predictable (e.g. release of end of storage cv. Queen Cox apples) then they can perform a valuable role
in promoting greater product utilisation and decreased waste, but even so may not increase demand overall.
Another possible impact is that consumers simply switch away from a product that is not being promoted to one
that is and if both are fruits, for example, then there is no overall increase in fruit purchases – a process known
as product ‘cannibalisation’. Some interviewees reported that promotions can have other unforeseen
consequences that may not be accounted for in forecasting. For instance, where a promotion works too well
then this may lead to the necessity to supply product from a lesser standard or different quality tier so as not to
fall short (e.g. “not satisfactory conditioning potatoes before packing [which can increase waste]” or “using
premium potato variety in a lower tier”). When customers over-purchase as a result of being tempted by
promotions then complaints can increase not only because of the pressure to deliver in full, but also because
consumers may store more product at home, often under sub-optimal storage conditions, and be disappointed
when they attempt to consume the product beyond its inherent home-life. This can have knock on effects by
increasing waste in the home and/or depress future sales due to customer dissatisfaction.
Results from the current research have shown that some suppliers interviewed feared that promotions are being
overused in the current climate such that consumers are suffering from ‘promotion fatigue’ and are confused
over the basis of some such offers. Some feared that the overuse of promotions (e.g. up to 50 - 80% for some
categories now sold) is destroying the price structure of the whole fresh produce category and actually making
promotions less effective. It was also noted that more seasonal products tend to be promoted (e.g. strawberries,
lettuce) to drive demand in certain periods.
It was highlighted by Terry et al. (2011) that the impact and mechanics of promotions should be better
understood from both an industry and consumer perspective and this recommendation still holds. Although the
vast majority of promotions are collectively agreed between retailers and suppliers, there are some which are
imposed with little thought on availability. It was reported by many suppliers that the frequency and timing of
some promotions is being governed more by retailer positioning rather than by being aligned to
oversupply/availability or even recognised seasonal demand (e.g. “promoting new potatoes out of season at
Christmas or Guy Fawkes night leading to increase imports”). There was some frustration amongst some
suppliers that promotions “used to be done in agreement based on crop flushes but changed over the last three
years and were now done corporately – dictated to buyers by the Centre, based on how many premium products
should be promoted /how many products on promotion at any one time and types of promotion. No flexibility or
45
common-sense approach”. It was also believed that retailer lead multi-buys promotions and changing pack
sizes across a range of categories may be confusing consumers. It is now unclear whether consumers
understand promotions and indeed the true price of different fruit and vegetable lines as they have little to
benchmark prices against. This represents a real risk and one which should be addressed in future research.
6.4.7 Seasonality
Availability is affected by seasonality, storage and supply chain management. Overall demand for many fresh
produce types is relatively predictable across years reflecting changes in eating habits, availability/price across
the season (Figure 7 and Annexes 4, 5 and 6). For example, the consumption of strawberry fruit increases
dramatically during the summer months when availability of UK fruit is high and costs are correspondingly
lower. Demand for premium potatoes [smaller salad and new potatoes] increases during the summer months.
In summary, although there has been some change in proportions of specific fruits and vegetables
sold across different quality tiers, the demand drivers and the pattern of volume sales are very
much affected by seasonality, availability (including storage) and are thus truly product specific.
More research is required to investigate further how seasonality and availability affect temporal
changes in demand across quality tiers and whether this is sustainable.
46
01/01
/04
01/01
/05
01/01
/06
01/01
/07
01/01
/08
01/01
/09
01/01
/10
01/01
/11
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
4 w
/e_S
pend
(£) i
n al
l fru
it
0
15000
30000
45000
60000
75000
ApplesBananasStrawberriesGrapesTomatoes
Time (years)01
/01/04
01/01
/05
01/01
/06
01/01
/07
01/01
/08
01/01
/09
01/01
/10
01/01
/11
0
2000
6000
9000
12000
all tiers
0
15000
30000
45000
60000
75000
premium
standard
value
01/01
/04
01/01
/05
01/01
/06
01/01
/07
01/01
/08
01/01
/09
01/01
/10
01/01
/11
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
4 w
/e_V
olum
e (K
g) in
All
frui
t
0
15000
30000
45000
60000all tiers
0
15000
30000
45000
60000
Time (years)01
/01/04
01/01
/05
01/01
/06
01/01
/07
01/01
/08
01/01
/09
01/01
/10
01/01
/11
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500premium
standard
value
ApplesBananasStrawberriesGrapesTomatoes
premiun
Time (years)01
/01/04
01/01
/05
01/01
/06
01/01
/07
01/01
/08
01/01
/09
01/01
/10
01/01
/11
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
4 w
/e_S
pend
(£) i
n al
l veg
etab
les
0
20000
40000
60000
80000
100000
OnionsPotatoesCabbageLettuceCarrots
standard
0
10000
20000
40000
80000all tiers
OnionsPotatoesCabbageLettuceCarrots
OnionsPotatoesCabbageLettuceCarrots
OnionsPotatoesCabbageLettuceCarrots
value
01/01
/04
01/01
/05
01/01
/06
01/01
/07
01/01
/08
01/01
/09
01/01
/10
01/01
/11
0
2000
4000
6000
value
01/01
/04
01/01
/05
01/01
/06
01/01
/07
01/01
/08
01/01
/09
01/01
/10
01/01
/11
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000premiun
Time (years)01
/01/04
01/01
/05
01/01
/06
01/01
/07
01/01
/08
01/01
/09
01/01
/10
01/01
/11
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
standard
0
20000
80000100000120000140000
4 w
/e_V
olum
e (K
g) in
all
vege
tabl
es
0
20000
4000080000
100000120000140000
OnionsPotatoesCabbageLettuceCarrots
all tiers
Figure 7: Monthly spend and volume consumed of selected fruit and vegetables in all tiers (premium, standard
and value) between 2003 and 2011 (redrawn using Kantar data) [NB y axis are different]
47
7. Prospects for a lower quality tier
7.1 Retailers
In general, no retailers supported an even lower quality tier than that which already exists in the industry and
suggested that it would devalue the category. This is despite the universally agreed belief that the introduction
of the lower tier in 2008 is recognised by most as being a success for most fruit and vegetable products in terms
of crop utilisation and sales. However, it was agreed by a minority of retailers that there may be some potential
in extending the lower range e.g. selling mark downs for home processing and introducing a ‘basic/value’ tier
for previously ‘non-basic/value’ products. One retailer cautioned that “risk for retailers on this [on the
consequences of supplying a lower quality tier] as would encourage ‘trading down’ and that best approach was
to spread out existing lower tier by tweaking minor attributes to reflect crop yields”. It was reported by some
respondents where they had looked at extending the lower value tier that there was no appetite by consumers for
a lower than existing tier, however it may be that brand positioning will limit any introduction of a lower quality
tier than that already available. One retailer insisted that they would like “to extend their lower tier but that this
was confounded by EU legislation” (cf. Section 8).
Despite various public campaigns to encourage consumers to ignore or place less emphasis on fruit and
vegetable aesthetics (e.g. The Sun Newspaper’s Wonky Veg Pledge) retailer specifications for fruit and
vegetables are principally governed by visual appearance (cf. Section 4). This is even true for products for
which the skin is not eaten and has no effect of taste, flavour or nutritional content. However, retailer
specifications may be a reflection of real consumer preferences. Consumer research is required to evaluate
whether attitudes might be changed or whether specifications have been created by a ‘self-fulfilling prophecy’.
That is, if consumers are continually exposed to produce which is increasingly aesthetically perfect then this is
what they will increasingly demand. Anything that deviates from this notion of quality will be adjudged by
many consumers (especially those who have little experience of fruit and vegetable purchasing outside main
retail) as being defective and sub-standard. Thus continual aesthetic ‘improvement’ will reinforce the
importance and value of specifications. One charity commented that “customers have been conditioned to visual
perfection” and that “retailers’ lower tier should be what it says but specifications are too high and retailers
could flex shape and size”.
Retailers in the main agreed that customers would be willing to forego cosmetic/ visual appearance and shape;
yet many still have strict specifications on visual appearance. One retailer stated that “visual defects are
becoming more into ‘reality’ as the customer is learning and have more experience on what affects the ‘eating’
48
of the produce” The same respondent also commented that “the specifications will relax [in the future] on
progressive defects (visual/shape) in a process where the customer feels confident that ‘defects’ such as
scarring, misshapenness are not affecting the organoleptic experience. Also the customer will start to
differentiate the aim of the produce purchased i.e. misshape carrots are not important when preparing a stew”.
Concerns were raised that the introduction of a lower than existing tier may reduce margins to a critical
threshold whereby farmers would switch from horticultural to arable farming. This possible threat to
horticulture might be compounded by the increased global food prices for arable commodities. Indeed one
retailer respondent suggested that “introducing of a lower specification i.e. producing a product which is below
a given threshold will backfire as you are encouraging growers to produce more waste. If you set out to
produce a lower quality tier you are going against every principle of agricultural production. The solution is to
breakdown the elements of waste [within the supply chain]”. An example of this was to “recognise that 25% of
irrigation for potatoes is used to reduce common [potato] scab. Therefore, if the specifications on scab are
relaxed then there would be increased sustainability”.
7.2 Suppliers
In the main, most of the suppliers interviewed in this study refuted that there was any prospect of successfully
introducing a lower quality tier and that it may not be in their interest as it could potentially devalue the
category since the margins on the current lowest tier are already minimal. This view was ubiquitous across the
category, but was especially the case for short shelf-life products which are intrinsically prone to disease or
senescence such that the strength of the opposition to an even lower tier did differ across produce type. All
respondents in the strawberry and lettuce industry categorically stated that there was no market for supplying a
lower quality that that which already exists and that “in reality the economics would not stack up” and that
“ugly product would have to be sold loose and it would be picked over [in store] and damaged leading to more
waste” For salads one respondent stated that “the target is 85% field yield (will vary and could be as high as
95%) so 15% is too small, too big, damaged or diseased. Product (whole field exceptionally) will not be
harvested – plough in instead if market is awash. Ploughing in is the cheapest form of management”. A
consensus view from respondents was that growers do not set out to grow low quality produce.
Apple suppliers stated that there was little appetite for a lower quality tier as there was “no or little margin for
most retailers” and “little opportunity for premium retailers”. One supplier reported that “because of price
pressure it would be difficult to make money if you were an apple grower and that there was currently no
strategy about how supplying a lower quality tier could be achieved”. The same respondent did however state
49
that “new varieties could hit price points that were attractive” and that “breeders could specifically breed for
smaller apples to market apples more successfully to children”.
Potato suppliers reported that when they have tried to introduce a lower tier category then either sales are
negatively affected (e.g. packing dirty potatoes in value tier) or customer complaints increase (e.g. moving
quality specification). One supplier commented that “consumers will not go back 10 years as skin finish is
critical [cf. Section 4] and that “consumers will not accept poor quality even in basics tier”. This was supported
by another potato supplier’s comment that consumers upgraded to standard lines when they purposely supplied
low tier potatoes that were not washed. This consumer reaction adds weight to the argument that price is in fact
not always the principal driver of demand (cf. section 6.2.1). Concerns were also raised that “anything that
downgraded consistency of potatoes could lead consumers to defect and buy non UK alternatives (e.g. rice and
pasta) and that by and large potatoes are not branded and have to combat large branded campaigns”.
All strawberry suppliers interviewed did not believe that there was a market for lower quality tier strawberries.
One stated that “individual growers have tried to make products from out grades but without success”. These
negative attitudes towards alternative markets for low grade fruit were mirrored by all other principal
strawberry suppliers and thus reflect the overall attitude of the sector that there is no market for lower grade
fruit as “rots and moulds are the only reasons for downgrades – so not acceptable to customers”. The
consequences of supplying a lower quality tier than that which already exists was reported to result in “big
wastage in store/at home” and that “fruit that didn’t last would have to go through the supply chain more
quickly [which would present] logistics issues” and “one day off shelf life can increase waste from 5% to 15%”.
The UK strawberry industry “will aim to sell as much of the crop as possible and the proportion of out grade
depends on season. Class I out-grade can vary between 65-95% depending on variety”. From these and other
comments it could be argued that although class II strawberry fruit were not being utilised by the retail sector, it
would be difficult for them to do so due to the limitations of logistics and supply chain management of such a
short shelf product. Increasing the shelf life of strawberry fruit and other short shelf life products through using
novel postharvest technologies may allow for class II to be better utilised, yet implementing such technologies
may be difficult in an increasingly price sensitive retail climate.
7.3 Wholesalers
The wholesale supply chain is already a key channel for lower grade fresh produce; yet, one wholesaler had
reservations about extending the lower tier since the margins might be too restrictive. Another wholesaler
stated that they “can see an opportunity but visual only. Could develop [lower tier] based on customer needs
50
e.g. chefs different specification/size requirements – but [they] do this already” Another respondent commented
that “some chefs (high end restaurants) want to see perfect product. Shift in expectations has taken place
towards perfection yet there is a market for lower quality (especially amongst ethnic communities with lower
disposal income) – size and shape maybe irrelevant if taste is acceptable”.
7.4 Consumers
Additional Kantar data was used to investigate the impact of employment status, region, age, gender and social
economic grouping on purchasing behaviour of apple, potato and strawberry and showed unexpected results for
factors which might have been assumed to influence fruit and vegetable demand (cf. Section 6.4). Overall data
provided evidence that employment status has a significant effect on fruit and vegetable purchasing yet those
working ‘Under 8 hrs’, ‘Unemployed’ or in ‘Full time Education’ purchased significantly lower amounts of
standard and value lines compared to those in full time employment or retired groups. Indeed, the purchasing of
lower tier fruit and vegetables tended to not be as influenced by socioeconomic grouping as expected and
indicates that increasing availability of lower quality fresh produce may not affect purchasing behaviour or
consumption for vulnerable groups. Generally, region had a minimal effect on purchasing behaviour across
quality tiers whilst those on the extremities of age groupings (‘80 and over’ and ‘under 30’ age groups) tended
to purchase less fruit and vegetables in the lower quality tiers.
51
8. Other considerations
8.1 Regulation and EU marketing standards for fresh produce
There has been continuing debate on the merits or otherwise of minimum standards for fruit and vegetables
since work by Price (1967) and Bowbrick (1977). The revised EU Marketing Standards were introduced in July
2009, aiming to ‘harmonise, consolidate, simplify and deregulate’ the existing standards for fresh produce. The
regulation reduced the number of commodities with specific marketing standards to ten products, selected on
the basis of being the top ten produced commodities in the EU.
There were concerns that rather than simplifying regulation the new Standards would introduce additional
layers of bureaucracy, complexity and cost to the fresh produce industry. The removal of prescriptive standards
for 26 types of produce was put forward as benefit to the industry.
There was a concern that instead of delivering a clear simplified set of regulations, these proposals would lead
to even greater proliferation of diverse requirements being set for the majority of produce not included among
the Specific Marketing Standards. UK customers (retailers) tend set their own quality standards for suppliers,
which can be over and above the regulatory standards. In effect, detailed standards still exist, although they are
not a requirement under the EU Marketing Standards.
One of the objectives of the introduction of the EU Marketing Standards was to benefit consumers by providing
produce which at that time was not currently available to the consumer as suitable for ‘home processing’.
The UK Government had a high expectation that there would be significant commercial benefits for the industry
with the derogation to allow ‘home processing’, allowing sales of produce at a lower quality. In addition it was
felt that there would be a significant impact on waste reduction, both within the food supply chain, although
alternative outlets are already in place for produce not meeting the existing Marketing Standards, or within the
home. Whilst this flexibility could be used by suppliers, there is no evidence that a significant increase of
products available to the consumer would be observed, although the current economic climate has seen the
development of more retailer value ranges to meet the needs of consumers.
The Fresh Produce Consortium has called on UK Government to ensure that standards are applied consistently
across all EU member states and that the UK industry is not placed at a competitive disadvantage owing to
differing interpretations of the General Marketing Standard. The Fresh Produce Consortium believes that
consistent application across the EU of the regulation and a thorough review in consultation with the industry
will be essential to evaluate the impact of the regulations on consumers and across the food supply chain before 52
any further significant changes are put in place. In addition, the industry is interested in removing the remaining
ten specific marketing standards.
Respondents in this research were asked whether the recent change to the EU marketing Standards for Fresh
Horticultural Produce Regulation (543/2011) have impacted their approach to quality (Appendix I and II). In
the main most respondents stated that the changes have had no effect. In contrast an HMI inspector agreed, but
stated that “I do not believe that the changes have had the impact that the Commission was expecting, especially
in the area of home processing derogation” and that “it has exposed a lack of consistency in the wider General
Marketing Standard protocol”.
Most suppliers, wholesalers and retailers commented that “specifications were key not the legal floor” that
“customers don’t understand [the standards]” that their approach to quality “was driven by retailer
specifications” and that “EU class system does not match what customers want because it excludes flavour and
taste – e.g. Class II Florida grapefruit taste better but looks worse than Class 1 Spanish”. One wholesaler
commented that “the economic climate might be right (as very price driven) for supplying a lower quality tier
but margins may not be enough to make it worthwhile”.
The strength of opinion against the relevance of the EU standards (not just specifically 543/2011) was
dependent on product type. For instance, one strawberry supplier commented that the regulations were “not far
from being totally irrelevant” and the regulations were “out of touch with consumer requirements”. Even
though the revised regulations do not apply directly to potatoes they have has an impact in that one supplier
stated that “the change from predetermined weights has now allowed suppliers to sell potato polybags at 2.3 kg
as before this would have been prohibited as only multiples of 0.5kg were allowed. Adjusting weights can be
important to make price points for example in a promotion”. For apples it was reported that although the
change in marketing standards has had little change a subtle change from size grading to weight grading has
helped increase available product. This has enhanced grade out for certain varieties. Also increase value of
fruit by shifting product out of pre-pack to loose. For onions one supplier stated that the “only impact has been
size banding – no need to label 20 mm difference. + sell <45 mm. more tolerance for broader size range”.
One supplier commented that “the change in standards was a good idea but that retailers would not move on
quality and that there was reluctance from retailers to take the risk in such a competitive climate”. In contrast,
one retailer stated that “changes [in legislation] led them to review specifications and make some minor
amendments” and that they were “also looking at ‘home processing’ derogation in the EU standards. It could
relate to anything on shelf [they] wished to reduce to clear rather than waste. If decide to do this then not a
53
separate tier but used on ‘mark-downs’ only. So better to sell as reduced to clear than go to waste e.g. one
bruised apple in a bag or seven – waste all seven or reduce to clear. RPA currently do not recognise the validity
of this approach – that a price reduction is a derogation”. Another retailer agreed that “Defra were not clear
about what can be packed at the lower tier level” This statement suggests that a lower than existing tier if used
for mark downs could reduce waste.
8.2 Five-A-Day targets and influence of media
Following the 5 A DAY advice leads to a recommended daily consumption of a minimum of 400 grams of fruit
and vegetables (excluding potatoes), although there has been some criticism over the scheme in that it equates
all fruit and vegetables (Terry, 2011). This said, according to the Department of Health’s 2008 Health Survey
for England, women aged 16 and over consumed an average of 3.8 portions (80g) per day, whilst men aged 16
and over consumed an average of 3.5 portions per day. Reported daily consumption of five or more portions of
fruit and vegetables increased between 2001 and 2006 but has since fallen back to 25% for men and 29% for
women in 2008.
The 2007 Lower Income Diet and Nutrition Survey recorded intake of fruit and vegetables by the most
materially deprived households in the UK. Only 8% of men and 9% of women met 5 portions of fruit and
vegetables a day, with a fifth of men and women consuming on average less than one portion per day. During
the four dietary recall days of the survey, a substantial proportion of participants consumed no fruit; this
included 36% of men, 28% of women, 32% of boys and 18% of girls.
Results from the first two years of the National Diet and Nutrition Survey (NDNS) rolling programme (2008/09
-2009/10) and which now includes fruit and vegetables from composite meals, show that adults (aged 19 to 64
years) consumed on average, 4.2 portions per day and older adults (aged 65 years and over) consumed 4.4
portions. Thirty per cent of adults and 37 per cent of older adults met the ‘five-a-day’ recommendation. Boys
aged 11-18 years, consumed on average 3.1 portions per day and 13 per cent met the ‘five a day’
recommendation. Girls in the same age group consumed 2.7 portions per day and 7 per cent met the
recommendation.
Dieticians work closely with clients and patients to advise on dietary requirements and encourage healthy
eating. This group of healthcare professionals therefore has a good understanding of attitudes to fruit and
vegetable consumption and the barriers that exist. IGD conducted an online survey of dieticians in 2011 to
obtain their views on aspects of fruit and vegetable consumption amongst their clients. Asked about the main
54
barriers to their clients reaching 5 A DAY, the top response was dislike of fruit and vegetables (79%), followed
by cost (65%), not knowing what constitutes a portion (59%) and preparation time (58%). Although cost was
mentioned as being a barrier to fruit and vegetable consumption it is unclear whether there was any evidence to
back up this assumption.
The present research has established that the fresh produce industry generally believes that the 5 A DAY
message has had little to no impact alone on fruit and vegetable demand and that in store promotions and use of
celebrity chefs in campaigns has had more of an effect on encouraging increased consumption in some market
segments. This said, retailers still promote the 5 A DAY message on some packaging and promotional material
showing that it does have some role. Examples of some pertinent retailers’ comments on whether the 5 A DAY
message or media impact demand for fruits and vegetables were as follows
“The 5 A DAY [campaign] has made no difference”
“customer buy on promotions, not on 5 A DAY”
“influence of celebrity chefs has had a greater impact [than on 5 A DAY], but may be being overdone”.
“customers don’t like being told to eat more fruit and vegetables but respond to new varieties [and]
recipe cards” and “customers respond to [in store] taste /health messages”
Analysis of Kantar data [Annex 12-1, 12-2, 12-3] has shown that the amounts of apples, potatoes and
strawberries purchased within a household and then equally divided by those members living in an individual
household is differentially affected by employment status, socioeconomic grouping and age group. Kantar 2011
data contains purchased amount (grams). To perform these analyses, it was assumed that distribution and
consumption between the household members was equal even though it is likely that this would not be the case.
Hence the same wastage levels between groups have been assumed. A summary is as follows:
Retired individuals purchased significantly more strawberries per person per household than all other
employment status groups for which there were significant differences with all groups (Annex 12-3)
Those in full-time education purchased the lowest amounts of potatoes per person per household which
was reflected in age (Annex 12-2) (cf. section 6.2.1)
Socioeconomic grouping has relatively little impact on apples and potatoes purchased per person per
household (Annex 12-1, 12-2). Statistical significant differences were found between SEG-B, C1 and C2
purchasing statistically more than SEG-E for apples and between SEG-B that purchased statistically
more potatoes than SEG-D and E..
55
Socioeconomic group D purchased significantly lower amounts of strawberries per person per
household than SEG-A, B, C1 and C2,. However there was no statistical difference between SEG-E and
SEG-A, C2 and D.
Purchasing of apples per person per household increased with age (Annex 12-1)
Purchasing of potatoes and strawberries per person per household increased with age until ‘70 -79
group’ and decreased for the ‘80 and over’ group.(Annex 12-2, 12-3)
8.3 Fruit and vegetable waste
There are many reasons why households waste fresh fruit and vegetables (Terry et al., 2011), for example two
thirds of potatoes are wasted because they are not used before the ‘best before date’. WRAP has looked at the
reasons in more detail why households throw away uncooked potatoes and they include rots, mould, sprouting,
greening, soft and slimy conditions (Pritchard et al., 2011). This research supports the work of the Potato
Council (2010) that showed the importance of appearance as a key driver of purchasing behaviour (cf. section
6.2.1). Interviewees told us that trials had been undertaken within the lower tier in which unwashed or
blemished potatoes had been offered for sale. These led to lost sales or a significant increase in consumer
complaints and therefore were discontinued.
More research is needed on understanding the drivers of waste (other than for potato) and how
these might be affected by consumer buying behaviour and changing purchasing decisions.
56
9. Recommendations for further research
1. Reconcile the overall markets trends shown by the different data sources (e.g. Family Food versus
Kantar).
2. Conduct further analysis to understand how temporal fluxes in volume and spend of specific fresh
produce types reflect changes in consumer attitudes or preference and whether they are related to
availability, seasonality and product differentiation (quality tiers).
3. To complement data on purchasing behaviour additional consumer research should be conducted on
establishing the intrinsic quality, perception and preferences with reference to different segmentation
(especially ethnicity/food culture, age, gender and socio-economic grouping) for individual fruit and
vegetable species.
4. Review the workings of the EU Regulations with a view to simplification.
5. Review the impact, mechanics and sustainability of promotions from both an industry and consumer
perspective.
57
References
Bowbrick, 1977. The case against compulsory minimum standards. J. Agric. Econ 28, 113-118.
Britain et al., 2010. The economics of food waste. Proceedings of Waste 2010: waste and resource
management – putting strategy into practice. Stratford-upon-Avon, 28-29 Sept.
Giné Bordonaba and Terry, 2009. Development of a glucose biosensor for rapid assessment of strawberry
quality: relationship between biosensor response and fruit composition. J. Agric. Food Chem. 57, 8220-8226.
Johnston et al., 2002. Postharvest softening of apple (Malus domestica) fruit: a review. NZ J. Crop Hort. Sci.
30, 145-160.
Potato Council, 2010. Usage and Attitude Research.
Price (1967). Discarding low quality produce with an elastic demand. J. Fm Econ. 49, 622-632.
Pritchard et al., 2011. Reducing supply chain and consumer potato waste. WRAP Final Report
Terry et al., 2011. Fruit and vegetables resource maps. WRAP Final Report
Terry, 2011. Health Promoting Properties of Fruit and Vegetables. CABI.
Terry, 2012. Soft Fruit In: Crop Postharvest: Science and technology- Perishables. Ed. Rees, Farrell and
Orchard.
58
Appendix I: retailer and wholesaler questionnaire
Fruit and Vegetable Demand -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Defra has commissioned Cranfield University, the Fresh Produce Consortium and IGD to conduct research into the demand for different quality tiers of fruit and vegetables. Specifically, Defra wish to understand the impacts and barriers to increasing the availability of lower quality fruit and vegetables to consumers.
Research for this project is being undertaken by questionnaire to retailers, wholesalers and their suppliers. The work will focus on demand overall as well as specifically for the following 10 products: apples, bananas, strawberries, grapes, onions, potatoes, tomatoes, cabbage, lettuce and carrots.
All answers will be ‘in confidence’ and not reported by individual respondent. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Retailers and Wholesalers
a) Quality
How do you define quality for fruit and vegetables?
What quality criteria do you use and which dimensions of quality are most important? How are these quality criteria enforced?(Could we have a copy of a sample quality specification)
What products fall into which quality tiers?How is this decided?
What is happening to demand for each quality tier?Are there different demand drivers for each quality tier?Are there significant differences in demand drivers between fruit/vegetables? (and different fruits/vegetables)
Do you think there is demand for a quality tier lower than you currently provide?Which quality criteria do you think consumers would be willing to forego?What are the barriers to supplying a lower quality tier to consumers? What would be the consequences of supplying a lower quality tier market?
Have you tried introducing a lower quality tier? If so, what were the results? Do you have any plans to introduce a lower quality tier?Have you done any market research on the demand for lower quality?
What effective leavers can you pull to increase demand for lower quality tiers?Do you think product specific promotions are more effective than generic campaigns at increasing overall fruit and vegetable consumption?
b) Demand
Please rank in order of importance the top 5 drivers (eg price/packaging) of fruit demand in the market Please rank in order of importance the top 5 drivers (eg price/packaging) of vegetable demand in the market
What are the top three external influences (eg 5 A DAY/Media) that impact demand for fruit and vegetables?
59
Do you think these drivers vary greatly product by product? If yes please give details
What are the main customer complaints regarding fruit/vegetables?
To what extent does demand vary during the year? To what extent is demand influenced by ‘Country of origin’?
How will the market for fruit and vegetables develop over the next 2-3 years?
60
Appendix II: supplier questionnaire
Fruit and Vegetable Demand
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Defra has commissioned Cranfield University, the Fresh Produce Consortium and IGD to conduct research into the demand for different quality tiers of fruit and vegetables. Specifically Defra wish to understand the impacts and barriers to increasing the availability of lower quality fruit and vegetables to consumers.
Research for this project is being undertaken by questionnaire to retailers, wholesalers and their suppliers. The work will focus on demand overall as well as specifically for the following 10 products: apples, bananas, strawberries, grapes, onions, potatoes, tomatoes, cabbage, lettuce and carrots.
All answers will be ‘in confidence’ and not reported by individual respondent. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Suppliers
a) Quality
What different quality tiers do you recognise?How is quality communicated by your customers’?How is quality determined?(Could we have a sample copy of your quality specifications?)
How is quality enforced?
What is happening to demand for each quality tier?Are there different demand drivers for each quality tier?Are there significant differences between fruit/vegetables? (and different fruits/vegetables)
What happens to products that do not make the top quality tier?What proportion of product is this?
What happens to products that do not make the lowest quality tier?What proportion of product is this?
What proportion of product does not make any quality grade?
What are the most important markets for ‘out-graded’ products? Do these markets specify any quality requirements?How will these markets develop?
Do you think there is a retail/wholesale market for lower quality tier products? If so, describe; if not why What would be the consequences of supplying a lower quality tier market?What are the barriers to supplying a lower quality tier consumer market?
Have you done any market research on the demand for lower quality?
b) Management61
How is quality communicated to growers?
What happens to products that are grown but fail to meet your quality criteria?
How are production quantities determined? Are growers involved and if so how?
Do you conduct joint planning and forecasting with customers/suppliers?
How are promotions decided?
62
ANNEX 1 - Quality
Food quality is the characteristics of food that are acceptable to consumers. This includes external factors as
appearance (size, shape, colour, gloss, and consistency), texture, taste and flavour; factors such as grade
standards and internal (chemical, physical, microbial). Food quality is thereby multi-faceted including intrinsic
product safety and health, sensory properties and shelf life, reliability and convenience as well as extrinsic
production system characteristics and environmental characteristics.
According to the FAO quoting ISO Standard 8402 (1987): quality is ‘the totality of features and characteristics
of a product or service that bears its ability to satisfy stated or implied needs’. This definition implies consumer
satisfaction fulfilling their needs and expectations. It is therefore essential when producing quality products to
know the user(s) of the product and what comprise the specific and constantly changing needs that are being
met. In this sense, quality is very much related to business strategy and marketing.
Grading is fundamental to any analysis of quality and rules relating to fruit and vegetables were in place in the
UK before we joined the EU. Grading implies sorting, classification and labelling and these requirements
feature in the EU Marketing Standards for Fresh Horticultural Produce. The standards are designed to provide a
degree of consumer protection for a sector where most products are highly perishable and serious defects in the
product can develop extremely rapidly. They are also designed to help build consumer and trade confidence in
the quality of produce they buy.
A new EU Regulation (543/2011) on marketing standards for fresh fruit and vegetables applies from 22 June
2011. EU Regulation 543/2011 contains the 10 specific marketing standards applying to Apples, Citrus
(including clementines, satsumas, oranges, lemons and mandarins), Kiwi Fruit, Lettuce (including curled and
broad leaved endives), Peaches and Nectarines, Pears, Strawberries, Sweet Peppers, Table Grapes and
Tomatoes. There is also a general marketing standard that applies to most other fresh fruit and vegetables. All
these standards have been updated and are now as far as possible in line with the internationally agreed UNECE
standards.
The main regulatory amendments include:
No definition of the different quality criteria for the concerned products; which gives a bigger
interpretation margin compared to the situation before July, 1st 2009.
No compulsory reference to the classification, size and the products definition.
63
The possibility for the Member States to plan derogations for the products sold unprocessed but marked
with the words “intended for processing”.
These standards are enforced by the Horticultural Marketing Inspectorate (HMI) (part of Defra’s Rural
Payments Agency). The purpose of an HMI inspection is to make sure that products are of an acceptable
standard and that consumers are not being presented with poor quality goods. The rules also cover labelling and
are intended to ensure that fresh produce offered to consumers are labelled accurately. Following an inspection
product can either be accepted, or where applicable, down-graded (from Class 1 to Class 11) or out-graded.
Down-grading or out-grading might result in unpacking or re-shipping to an alternative non-UK market.
Quality checks are conducted by the HMI and in 2008 inspections of imported products resulted in 0.5% being
out-graded and 0.2% were downgraded. Labelling defects amounted to a further two per cent. The main cause
of quality defects is rotting, while the main cause of label defects is failure to state a product class.
An evaluation of the impact of the recent changes to the marketing standards acknowledged that in the UK
marketing standards are defined by multiple retailers. In practice retailers and foodservice operators in the UK
have adopted more stringent quality specifications than those in law to target different shoppers, differentiate
themselves from their competitors as well as provide a point of reference against legal standards.
Fruit and vegetables are rarely branded compared with other grocery products. As a result the overwhelming
majority of fresh fruit and vegetables are sold under the retailers ‘own label’ brand. These products can be
differentiated in many ways, for example loose or pre-pack, variety, size and production standard, for example
‘Leaf’ or organic. Most retailers today recognise the three quality tiers (Table 3).
Table 3: Nomenclature of different quality tiers used by different UK retails
Retailer Premium Standard ValueTesco Finest --- ValueSainsbury’s Taste the Difference --- BasicsAsda Extra Special --- Smart PriceMorrsionsCo-op
The BestTruly Irresistible
------
ValueSimply Value
Waitrose *** --- EssentialsM&S *** --- ---Aldi --- --- ---Lidl --- --- ---
64
Underpinning this approach to quality are specifications which retailers use when sourcing products and which
provide a basis by which suppliers’ grade products for their customers. These specifications vary by product
type and by retailer but will cover a range of visual measures like size, shape, colour, rots and bruising as well
as eating quality measures which are based primarily on variety underpinned by taste tests and TSS. Premium
products and those sold as Standard by retailers like M&S are usually differentiated by taste. Some products
grown for the Premium tier may be sold as Standard if they don’t meet visual criteria. Value lines tend to be
differentiated by visual characteristics, for example they are smaller or misshapen compared to Standard lines.
‘Standard’ lines typically have no differentiator on packs while Premium and Value both do.
Organic fruit and vegetables go into Standard, unless they have some kind of premium identifier on it such as
'Tesco Finest Organic Tomatoes' - then it would go into Premium. Other on-pack information including the ‘red
tractor’ logo or any environmental label like carbon amounts are not currently used as quality differentiators.
The three quality tiers presented above have evolved over time. For example it was rare to find as many Value
lines in 2007 as it is today (Figs. 1-3). These lines were introduced by retailers largely in response to the
economic recession during 2008/9 because the Discounters like Aldi and Lidl were increasing their market
share. The increasing quantity of fruit and vegetables sold on promotion is another response adapted by the
major multiples.
The impact of introducing a new quality tier for any product is difficult to predict at the outset. Economists
argue that changing grading specifications will impact the supply and demand functions for the firm that
supplies the product and for the individual who is the final purchaser. For example a change that results in a
different quantity being put into a grade (say a variety of apples being moved from standard to premium lines)
could have several impacts including the following:
There would be an increase in the quantity of premium lines so their price will tend to fall;
Consumers may switch to premium lines raising demand but lowering it for standard lines;
The quantity of standard lines will fall so price will tend to increase;
Standard and premium lines may become closer or less close substitutes for one another or for other
goods affecting their demand;
Customers may switch stores if the costs of selecting premium lines are not outweighed by the benefits
of consumption;
Production and handling costs may change.
65
As a result the impact of a grade change on sales will be difficult to predict. One supplier stated that “so flight to
discounters post 2007 led to value lines. These proved popular but no margins so retailers restrict distribution
(e.g. to out of town stores only)”
66
ANNEX 2 - Data sources
a) Family Food
Data on purchases and expenditure have been collected by various surveys since 1940. The National Food
Survey was established in July 1940 to provide an assessment of the effectiveness of the national food policy at
the time. The original survey was largely restricted to urban working class households and measured purchases
of food for household stocks. In 1950 the survey was extended to a national sample representing as far as
possible a complete cross section of the Great British population.
In 2001 the National Food Survey (NFS) was merged with the Family Expenditure Survey (FES) to form the
Expenditure and Food Survey (EFS). The Expenditure and Food Survey was an extended Family Expenditure
Survey, extended to incorporate the National Food Survey requirement. This extension is now known as the
Family Food Module.
The Family Food Module provides:
long terms trends with much data going back to 1974 and some data going back as far as 1940;
household food purchases recorded with minimal under-reporting since they are based on information
on attached till receipts ;
an annual sample size sufficient to allow analysis by Government Office Region and demographic
characteristics;
trends in eating out, defined as food and drink not brought into the household. NB. Data in Family Food conforms fully to National Statistics standards
b) Commercial tracking services
Purchasing data can be obtained from companies like Kantar, A C Neilson and Dunnhumby Ltd who run
commercial sales tracking services primarily for retailers and their suppliers.
67
ANNEX 3 - Findings from Shopper research
For some time shoppers have indicated a strong desire to increases their fruit and vegetable consumption. IGD
research in 2009 asked shoppers how they thought their diets would change over the next few years. The results
show a marked similarity to those from a year previous, namely that over one-third (36%) of shoppers expected
to be buying more fruit and vegetables in the coming year. This rises to 41% among those with young children
aged 0-15 years. Yet, according to Family Food Survey 2009 purchases have been falling. This decline is not
evident from the Kantar data presented in this report (Figs. 1-5).
The factors that drive product choice at the ‘moment of truth’ have changed considerably over the last five
years. The most dramatic change has been the swing towards price and away from other factors including brand
name. Food content is also a key theme as shoppers are interested in knowing what is in their food both from a
quality and health perspective.
IGD’s tracking of the drivers of product choice indicate that for around nine in ten shoppers’ price is the top
driver when choosing products. This ranking has been unchanged over the last year. The full breakdown of
product drivers is shown in figure below. The second main driver of product choice, promotions, is price related
while quality and performance measures rank third and fourth respectively.
© IGD 2011
Drivers of product choice
IGD ShopperTrack, base: all main shoppers, fieldwork Jun’11
1 Price
2 Promotions
3 Quality or performance
4 Taste and smell
5 Familiarity
6 Healthy option
7 Use by or sell by date
8 Brand
9 Ethical or eco-friendly
10 Ease of using
Most important Top 2 Top 5
IGD’s analysis is supported by other omnibus surveys for example the FSA Omnibus survey (2008) found that
when shopping for food the issues that were considered by consumers when choosing one food product over
another were headed by price (51%), followed by the quality of the food (39%). Other considerations were 68
brand names (13%), use by/best before dates (12%) and the healthiness of food (12%). Clearly the prominence
of price has risen in consumers’ minds as their disposable income situation has deteriorated.
The data presented above is generic in that it relates to all food products. We have to infer that the same factors
in the same rank order would be identified by shoppers if they were asked the same questions in respect of fresh
fruit and vegetables.
69
ANNEX 4 – Seasonal changes in fruit spend and volume consumed
all tiers
4 w
/e_S
pend
(£) i
n Fr
uit &
veg
0400000
500000
600000
700000
800000
premium
Time (years)01
/01/04
01/01
/05
01/01
/06
01/01
/07
01/01
/08
01/01
/09
01/01
/10
01/01
/11
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
35000
standard
0
400000
600000
800000
value
01/01
/04
01/01
/05
01/01
/06
01/01
/07
01/01
/08
01/01
/09
01/01
/10
01/01
/11
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
50000 value
01/01
/04
01/01
/05
01/01
/06
01/01
/07
01/01
/08
01/01
/09
01/01
/10
01/01
/11
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
50000
60000
all tiers
4 w
/e_V
olum
e (K
g) in
Fru
it &
veg
0
360000
390000
420000
450000
480000
510000 standard
0
360000
390000
420000
450000
480000
premium
Time (years)01
/01/04
01/01
/05
01/01
/06
01/01
/07
01/01
/08
01/01
/09
01/01
/10
01/01
/11
0
6000
12000
18000
24000
30000
36000
Figure A4-1: Estimated monthly spend and volume consumed of selected fruit and vegetables in all quality
tiers (premium, standard and value) between 2003 and 2011 in the UK (Source: Kantar)
70
ANNEX 5 – Seasonal changes in individual selected fruit spend and volume consumed
all tiers
4 w
/e_S
pend
(£) i
n A
pple
s
0
42000
48000
54000
60000
66000
premium
Time (years)01
/01/04
01/01
/05
01/01
/06
01/01
/07
01/01
/08
01/01
/09
01/01
/10
01/01
/11
0
500
1000
1500
2000
standard
0
40000
45000
50000
55000
60000
value
01/01
/04
01/01
/05
01/01
/06
01/01
/07
01/01
/08
01/01
/09
01/01
/10
01/01
/11
0
1000
2000
3000
4000value
01/01
/04
01/01
/05
01/01
/06
01/01
/07
01/01
/08
01/01
/09
01/01
/10
01/01
/11
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
all tiers
4 w
/e_V
olum
e (K
g) in
App
les
0
30000
35000
40000
45000
50000 standard
0
30000
35000
40000
45000
premium
Time (years)
01/01
/04
01/01
/05
01/01
/06
01/01
/07
01/01
/08
01/01
/09
01/01
/10
01/01
/11
0
300
600
900
value
01/01
/04
01/01
/05
01/01
/06
01/01
/07
01/01
/08
01/01
/09
01/01
/10
01/01
/11
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
standard
0
30000
35000
40000
45000
50000
55000all tiers
4 w
/e_S
pend
(£) i
n B
anan
as
030000
35000
40000
45000
50000
55000
60000
premium
Time (years)01
/01/04
01/01
/05
01/01
/06
01/01
/07
01/01
/08
01/01
/09
01/01
/10
01/01
/11
0
10
20
30
all tiers
4 w
/e_V
olum
e (K
g) in
Ban
anas
0
30000
40000
50000
60000
value
01/01
/04
01/01
/05
01/01
/06
01/01
/07
01/01
/08
01/01
/09
01/01
/10
01/01
/11
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
standard
0
30000
35000
40000
45000
50000
premium
Time (years)01
/01/04
01/01
/05
01/01
/06
01/01
/07
01/01
/08
01/01
/09
01/01
/10
01/01
/11
0
5
10
15
20
25
all tiers
4 w
/e_S
pend
(£) i
n St
raw
berr
ies
0
20000
40000
60000
80000
premium
Time (years)01
/01/04
01/01
/05
01/01
/06
01/01
/07
01/01
/08
01/01
/09
01/01
/10
01/01
/11
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
standard
0
20000
40000
60000
80000
value
01/01
/04
01/01
/05
01/01
/06
01/01
/07
01/01
/08
01/01
/09
01/01
/10
01/01
/11
0
1000
2000
3000value
01/01
/04
01/01
/05
01/01
/06
01/01
/07
01/01
/08
01/01
/09
01/01
/10
01/01
/11
0
200
400
600
800
all tiers
4 w
/e_V
olum
e (K
g) in
Str
awbe
rrie
s
0
5000
10000
15000
20000standard
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
premium
Time (years)01
/01/04
01/01
/05
01/01
/06
01/01
/07
01/01
/08
01/01
/09
01/01
/10
01/01
/11
0
150
300
450
600
all tiers
4 w
/e_S
pend
(£) i
n G
rape
s
020000
30000
40000
50000
premium
Time (years)01
/01/04
01/01
/05
01/01
/06
01/01
/07
01/01
/08
01/01
/09
01/01
/10
01/01
/11
0
150
300
450
600
standard
020000
30000
40000
50000
value
01/01
/04
01/01
/05
01/01
/06
01/01
/07
01/01
/08
01/01
/09
01/01
/10
01/01
/11
0
1000
2000
3000value
01/01
/04
01/01
/05
01/01
/06
01/01
/07
01/01
/08
01/01
/09
01/01
/10
01/01
/11
0
300
600
900
1200
1500
all tiers
4 w
/e_V
olum
e (K
g) in
Gra
pes
0
9000
12000
15000
18000
21000 standard
08000
12000
16000
20000
premium
Time (years)01
/01/04
01/01
/05
01/01
/06
01/01
/07
01/01
/08
01/01
/09
01/01
/10
01/01
/11
0
50
100
150
200
71
all tiers
4 w
/e_S
pend
(£) i
n T
omat
oes
0
30000
40000
50000
60000
70000
premium
Time (years)01
/01/04
01/01
/05
01/01
/06
01/01
/07
01/01
/08
01/01
/09
01/01
/10
01/01
/11
03000
6000
9000
12000
standard
020000
30000
40000
50000
60000
value
01/01
/04
01/01
/05
01/01
/06
01/01
/07
01/01
/08
01/01
/09
01/01
/10
01/01
/11
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
value
01/01
/04
01/01
/05
01/01
/06
01/01
/07
01/01
/08
01/01
/09
01/01
/10
01/01
/11
0
500
1000
1500
2000
all tiers
4 w
/e_V
olum
e (K
g) in
Tom
atoe
s
0
15000
20000
25000
30000 standard
010000
15000
20000
25000
30000
premium
Time (years)
01/01
/04
01/01
/05
01/01
/06
01/01
/07
01/01
/08
01/01
/09
01/01
/10
01/01
/11
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
Figure A5-1: Estimated monthly spend and volume consumed of individual selected fruit in all quality tiers
(premium, standard and value) between 2003 and 2011 in the UK (Source: Kantar)
72
ANNEX 6 - Seasonal changes in individual selected vegetables spend and volume consumedall tiers
4 w
/e_S
pend
(£) i
n O
nion
s
0
9000
12000
15000
18000
premium
Time (years)01
/01/04
01/01
/05
01/01
/06
01/01
/07
01/01
/08
01/01
/09
01/01
/10
01/01
/11
0
100
200
300
standard
0
9000
12000
15000
18000
value
01/01
/04
01/01
/05
01/01
/06
01/01
/07
01/01
/08
01/01
/09
01/01
/10
01/01
/11
0
1000
value
01/01
/04
01/01
/05
01/01
/06
01/01
/07
01/01
/08
01/01
/09
01/01
/10
01/01
/11
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
all tiers
4 w
/e_V
olum
e (K
g) in
Oni
ons
0
12000
15000
18000
21000 standard
010000
12000
14000
16000
18000
premium
Time (years)
01/01
/04
01/01
/05
01/01
/06
01/01
/07
01/01
/08
01/01
/09
01/01
/10
01/01
/11
0
40
80
120
all tiers
4 w
/e_S
pend
(£) i
n Po
tato
es
0
50000
60000
70000
80000
90000
100000
premium
Time (years)01
/01/04
01/01
/05
01/01
/06
01/01
/07
01/01
/08
01/01
/09
01/01
/10
01/01
/11
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
standard
040000
50000
60000
70000
80000
90000
value
01/01
/04
01/01
/05
01/01
/06
01/01
/07
01/01
/08
01/01
/09
01/01
/10
01/01
/11
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000 value
01/01
/04
01/01
/05
01/01
/06
01/01
/07
01/01
/08
01/01
/09
01/01
/10
01/01
/11
0
4000
8000
12000
16000
20000
24000
all tiers
4 w
/e_V
olum
e (K
g) in
Pot
atoe
s0
90000
105000
120000
135000
150000 standard
080000
100000
120000
140000
premium
Time (years)01
/01/04
01/01
/05
01/01
/06
01/01
/07
01/01
/08
01/01
/09
01/01
/10
01/01
/11
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
all tiers
4 w
/e_S
pend
(£) i
n C
abba
ge
04000
5000
6000
7000
8000
9000
premium
Time (years)01
/01/04
01/01
/05
01/01
/06
01/01
/07
01/01
/08
01/01
/09
01/01
/10
01/01
/11
0
50
100
150
standard
0
4000
6000
8000
value
01/01
/04
01/01
/05
01/01
/06
01/01
/07
01/01
/08
01/01
/09
01/01
/10
01/01
/11
0
100
200
300value
01/01
/04
01/01
/05
01/01
/06
01/01
/07
01/01
/08
01/01
/09
01/01
/10
01/01
/11
0
100
200
300
all tiers
4 w
/e_V
olum
e (K
g) in
Cab
bage
04000
5000
6000
7000
8000 standard
04000
5000
6000
7000
8000
premium
Time (years)
01/01
/04
01/01
/05
01/01
/06
01/01
/07
01/01
/08
01/01
/09
01/01
/10
01/01
/11
0
25
50
75
73
all tiers
4 w
/e_S
pend
(£) i
n L
ettu
ce
0
10000
15000
20000
25000
premium
Time (years)01
/01/04
01/01
/05
01/01
/06
01/01
/07
01/01
/08
01/01
/09
01/01
/10
01/01
/11
0
50
100
150
200
250
standard
05000
10000
15000
20000
25000
value
01/01
/04
01/01
/05
01/01
/06
01/01
/07
01/01
/08
01/01
/09
01/01
/10
01/01
/11
0
500
1000
1500value
01/01
/04
01/01
/05
01/01
/06
01/01
/07
01/01
/08
01/01
/09
01/01
/10
01/01
/11
0
200
400
600
800
all tiers
4 w
/e_V
olum
e (K
g) in
Let
tuce
04000
6000
8000
10000
12000 standard
04000
6000
8000
10000
12000
premium
Time (years)01
/01/04
01/01
/05
01/01
/06
01/01
/07
01/01
/08
01/01
/09
01/01
/10
01/01
/11
0
20
40
60
80
100
all tiers
4 w
/e_S
pend
(£) i
n C
arro
ts
0
10000
15000
20000
25000
premium
Time (years)01
/01/04
01/01
/05
01/01
/06
01/01
/07
01/01
/08
01/01
/09
01/01
/10
01/01
/11
0
300
600
900
1200
standard
0
10000
15000
20000
25000
value
01/01
/04
01/01
/05
01/01
/06
01/01
/07
01/01
/08
01/01
/09
01/01
/10
01/01
/11
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000 value
01/01
/04
01/01
/05
01/01
/06
01/01
/07
01/01
/08
01/01
/09
01/01
/10
01/01
/11
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
all tiers
4 w
/e_V
olum
e (K
g) in
Car
rots
015000
20000
25000
30000
35000 standard
0
18000
21000
24000
27000
premium
Time (years)01
/01/04
01/01
/05
01/01
/06
01/01
/07
01/01
/08
01/01
/09
01/01
/10
01/01
/11
0
300
600
900
Figure A6-1: Monthly spend and volume consumed of individual selected vegetables in all quality tiers
(premium, standard and value) between 2003 and 2011 in the UK (Source: Kantar)
74
ANNEX 7-1 – Impact of employment status on purchasing of apples across different quality tiers
Employment group
Over 30 Hrs8-29 Hrs
Under 8 Hrs
UnemployedRetired
Full time education
Not working
Prem
ium
app
les
purc
hase
(%)
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
Employment group
Over 30 Hrs8-29 Hrs
Under 8 Hrs
UnemployedRetired
Full time education
Not working
Stan
dard
app
les
purc
hase
(%)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Employment group
Over 30 Hrs8-29 Hrs
Under 8 Hrs
UnemployedRetired
Full time education
Not working
Valu
e ap
ples
pur
chas
e (%
)
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
Figure A7-1. Average value, standard and premium apples (%) purchased in each employment group category out of the total annual apples purchased.
Wilcoxon non parametric comparison for each pair - EmploymentPremium apples Standard Apples Value Apples
Level - Level p-Value Level - Level p-Value Level - Level p-ValueOver 30 Hrs Full time education <.0001* Over 30 Hrs Full time
education<.0001* Over 30H 100%
Education<.0001*
Retired Full time education <.0001* Retired Full time education
<.0001* Retired 100% Education
<.0001*
Over 30 Hrs Not working <.0001* Over 30 Hrs Not working <.0001* 8-29H 100% Education
<.0001*
Not working Full time education <.0001* Retired Not working <.0001* Not working 100% Education
<.0001*
Over 30 Hrs 8-29 Hrs <.0001* Not working Full time education
<.0001* Over 30H Not working <.0001*
Retired Not working <.0001* Over 30 Hrs 8-29 Hrs <.0001* Over 30H 8-29H <.0001*Retired 8-29 Hrs <.0001* Retired 8-29 Hrs <.0001* Retired Not working <.0001*Under 8 Hrs Full time education <.0001* Unemployed Full time
education<.0001* Retired 8-29H 0.0013*
Unemployed Full time education 0.0005* Under 8 Hrs Full time education
<.0001* Unemployed 100% Education
<.0001*
Not working 8-29 Hrs 0.5592 Unemployed Under 8 Hrs 0.8283 Under 8H 100% Education
<.0001*
Unemployed Under 8 Hrs 0.1929 Retired Over 30 Hrs 0.4591 Unemployed Under 8H 0.8361Retired Over 30 Hrs 0.5763 Not working 8-29 Hrs 0.0313* Not working 8-29H 0.3172Under 8 Hrs Not working <.0001* Unemployed Not working <.0001* Retired Over 30H 0.0326*Under 8 Hrs 8-29 Hrs <.0001* Under 8 Hrs Not working <.0001* Unemployed Not working <.0001*Unemployed Not working <.0001* Unemployed 8-29 Hrs <.0001* Under 8H Not working <.0001*Unemployed 8-29 Hrs <.0001* Under 8 Hrs 8-29 Hrs <.0001* Unemployed 8-29H <.0001*Full time education
8-29 Hrs <.0001* Full time education 8-29 Hrs <.0001* Under 8H 8-29H <.0001*
75
Wilcoxon non parametric comparison for each pair - EmploymentPremium apples Standard Apples Value Apples
Level - Level p-Value Level - Level p-Value Level - Level p-ValueUnder 8 Hrs Retired <.0001* Unemployed Retired <.0001* Unemployed Retired <.0001*Unemployed Retired <.0001* Under 8 Hrs Retired <.0001* Under 8H Retired <.0001*Under 8 Hrs Over 30 Hrs <.0001* Unemployed Over 30 Hrs <.0001* Unemployed Over 30H <.0001*Unemployed Over 30 Hrs <.0001* Under 8 Hrs Over 30 Hrs <.0001* Under 8H Over 30H <.0001*
* Denotes statistically significant results P=95%
76
ANNEX 7-2 – Impact of employment status on purchasing of potatoes across different quality tiers
Employment group
Over 30 Hrs8-29 Hrs
Under 8 Hrs
UnemployedRetired
Full time education
Not working
Prem
ium
pot
atoe
s pu
rcha
se (%
)
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
Employment group
Over 30 Hrs8-29 Hrs
Under 8 Hrs
UnemployedRetired
Full time education
Not working
Stan
dard
pot
atoe
s pu
rcha
se (%
)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Employment group
Over 30 Hrs8-29 Hrs
Under 8 Hrs
UnemployedRetired
Full time education
Not working
Valu
e po
tato
es p
urch
ase
(%)
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
Figure A7-2. Average value, standard and premium potatoes (%) purchased in each employment group category out of the total annual potatoes purchased.
Wilcoxon non parametric comparison for each pair - EmploymentPremium potatoes Standard potatoes Value potatoes
Level - Level p-Value
Level - Level p-Value Level - Level p-Value
Retired Full time education <.0001* Over 30 Hrs Full time education <.0001* Over 30 Hrs Full time education <.0001*Over 30 Hrs Full time education <.0001* Retired Full time education <.0001* Retired Full time education <.0001*Retired Not working <.0001* Over 30 Hrs Not working <.0001* Over 30 Hrs Not working <.0001*Retired 8-29 Hrs <.0001* Retired Not working <.0001* Not working Full time education <.0001*Over 30 Hrs Not working <.0001* Not working Full time education <.0001* Retired Not working <.0001*Over 30 Hrs 8-29 Hrs <.0001* Over 30 Hrs 8-29 Hrs <.0001* Over 30 Hrs 8-29 Hrs <.0001*Not working Full time education <.0001* Retired 8-29 Hrs <.0001* Retired 8-29 Hrs <.0001*Retired Over 30 Hrs 0.0055* Unemployed Full time education <.0001* Unemployed Full time education <.0001*Under 8 Hrs Full time education <.0001* Under 8 Hrs Full time education <.0001* Under 8 Hrs Full time education <.0001*Unemployed Full time education <.0001* Unemployed Under 8 Hrs 0.4348 Unemployed Under 8 Hrs 0.6586Unemployed Under 8 Hrs 0.0840 Retired Over 30 Hrs 0.3941 Retired Over 30 Hrs 0.6115Not working 8-29 Hrs 0.0052* Not working 8-29 Hrs 0.0817 Not working 8-29 Hrs 0.3594Under 8 Hrs Not working <.0001* Unemployed Not working <.0001* Unemployed Not working <.0001*Unemployed Not working <.0001* Under 8 Hrs Not working <.0001* Under 8 Hrs Not working <.0001*Under 8 Hrs 8-29 Hrs <.0001* Unemployed 8-29 Hrs <.0001* Unemployed 8-29 Hrs <.0001*Unemployed 8-29 Hrs <.0001* Under 8 Hrs 8-29 Hrs <.0001* Under 8 Hrs 8-29 Hrs <.0001*Full time education 8-29 Hrs <.0001* Full time education 8-29 Hrs <.0001* Full time education 8-29 Hrs <.0001*Under 8 Hrs Over 30 Hrs <.0001* Unemployed Retired <.0001* Unemployed Retired <.0001*Unemployed Over 30 Hrs <.0001* Under 8 Hrs Retired <.0001* Under 8 Hrs Retired <.0001*Under 8 Hrs Retired <.0001* Unemployed Over 30 Hrs <.0001* Unemployed Over 30 Hrs <.0001*Unemployed Retired <.0001* Under 8 Hrs Over 30 Hrs <.0001* Under 8 Hrs Over 30 Hrs <.0001*
77
* Denotes statistically significant results P=95%
ANNEX 7-3 – Impact of employment status on purchasing of strawberries across different quality tiers
Employment group
Over 30 Hrs8-29 Hrs
Under 8 Hrs
UnemployedRetired
Full time education
Not working
Prem
ium
str
awbe
rrie
s pu
rcha
se (%
)
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
Employment group
Over 30 Hrs8-29 Hrs
Under 8 Hrs
UnemployedRetired
Full time education
Not workingSt
anda
rd s
traw
berr
ies
purc
hase
(%)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Employment group
Over 30 Hrs8-29 Hrs
Under 8 Hrs
UnemployedRetired
Full time education
Not working
Valu
e st
raw
berr
ies
purc
hase
(%)
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
Figure A7-3. Average value, standard and premium strawberries (%) purchased in each employment group category out of the total annual strawberries purchased.
Wilcoxon non parametric comparison for each pair - EmploymentPremium strawberries Standard strawberries Value strawberries
Level - Level p-Value
Level - Level p-Value Level - Level p-Value
Over 30 Hrs Full time education <.0001* Over 30 Hrs Full time education <.0001* Retired Full time education <.0001*Retired Full time education <.0001* Retired Full time education <.0001* Over 30 Hrs Full time education <.0001*Over 30 Hrs Not working <.0001* Over 30 Hrs Not working <.0001* Not working Full time education <.0001*Retired Not working <.0001* Over 30 Hrs 8-29 Hrs <.0001* Retired Not working <.0001*Over 30 Hrs 8-29 Hrs <.0001* Retired Not working <.0001* Over 30 Hrs Not working <.0001*Retired 8-29 Hrs <.0001* Not working Full time education <.0001* Retired 8-29 Hrs <.0001*Not working Full time education <.0001* Retired 8-29 Hrs <.0001* Over 30 Hrs 8-29 Hrs <.0001*Under 8 Hrs Full time education 0.0337* Unemployed Full time education <.0001* Unemployed Full time education <.0001*Unemployed Full time education 0.1796 Under 8 Hrs Full time education <.0001* Under 8 Hrs Full time education <.0001*Unemployed Under 8 Hrs 0.3644 Unemployed Under 8 Hrs 0.6424 Retired Over 30 Hrs 0.7960Retired Over 30 Hrs 0.5437 Retired Over 30 Hrs 0.5041 Unemployed Under 8 Hrs 0.6036Under 8 Hrs Not working 0.0022* Not working 8-29 Hrs 0.0185* Not working 8-29 Hrs 0.0946Unemployed Not working 0.0001* Unemployed Not working <.0001* Unemployed Not working <.0001*Not working 8-29 Hrs 0.0006* Under 8 Hrs Not working <.0001* Under 8 Hrs Not working <.0001*Under 8 Hrs 8-29 Hrs <.0001* Unemployed 8-29 Hrs <.0001* Unemployed 8-29 Hrs <.0001*Unemployed 8-29 Hrs <.0001* Under 8 Hrs 8-29 Hrs <.0001* Under 8 Hrs 8-29 Hrs <.0001*Full time education 8-29 Hrs <.0001* Full time education 8-29 Hrs <.0001* Full time education 8-29 Hrs <.0001*Under 8 Hrs Retired <.0001* Unemployed Retired <.0001* Unemployed Over 30 Hrs <.0001*Unemployed Retired <.0001* Under 8 Hrs Retired <.0001* Under 8 Hrs Over 30 Hrs <.0001*Under 8 Hrs Over 30 Hrs <.0001* Unemployed Over 30 Hrs <.0001* Unemployed Retired <.0001*
78
Wilcoxon non parametric comparison for each pair - EmploymentPremium strawberries Standard strawberries Value strawberries
Level - Level p-Value
Level - Level p-Value Level - Level p-Value
Unemployed Over 30 Hrs <.0001* Under 8 Hrs Over 30 Hrs <.0001* Under 8 Hrs Retired <.0001** Denotes statistically significant results P=95%
ANNEX 8-1 – Impact of socioeconomic grouping on purchasing of apples across different quality tiers
Socio Economic Group
A B C1 C2 D E
Prem
ium
app
les
purc
hase
(%)
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
Socio Economic Group
A B C1 C2 D E
Stan
dard
app
les
purc
hase
(%)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Socio Economic Group
A B C1 C2 D E
Valu
e ap
ples
pur
chas
e (%
)
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
Figure A8-1. Average value, standard and premium apples (%) purchased in each socioeconomic grouping category out of the total annual apples purchased.
Wilcoxon non parametric comparison for each pair – Socio economic groupingPremium apples Standard apples Value apples
Level - Level p-Value Level - Level p-Value Level - Level p-ValueC1 A <.0001* C1 A <.0001* C1 A <.0001*B A <.0001* B A <.0001* B A <.0001*C2 A <.0001* C2 A <.0001* C2 A <.0001*E A <.0001* E A <.0001* D A <.0001*D A <.0001* D A <.0001* E A <.0001*C1 B 0.0091* C1 B <.0001* C1 B <.0001*E D 0.1737 E D 0.5804 C2 B 0.6792C2 B 0.0795 C2 B 0.0725 E D 0.3857E C2 0.0172* E C2 <.0001* D C2 0.0321*D C2 0.0002* D C2 <.0001* D B 0.0105*E B <.0001* E B <.0001* E C2 0.0026*C2 C1 <.0001* D B <.0001* E B 0.0006*D B <.0001* C2 C1 <.0001* C2 C1 <.0001*E C1 <.0001* E C1 <.0001* D C1 <.0001*D C1 <.0001* D C1 <.0001* E C1 <.0001*
79
* Denotes statistically significant results P=95%
80
ANNEX 8-2 – Impact of socioeconomic grouping on purchasing of potatoes across different quality tiers
Socio Economic Group
A B C1 C2 D E
Prem
ium
pot
atoe
s pu
rcha
se (%
)
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
Socio Economic Group
A B C1 C2 D E
Stan
dard
pot
atoe
s pu
rcha
se (%
)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Socio Economic Group
A B C1 C2 D E
Valu
e po
tato
es p
urch
ase
(%)
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
Figure A8-2. Average value, standard and premium potatoes (%) purchased in each socioeconomic grouping category out of the total annual potatoes purchased.
Wilcoxon non parametric comparison for each pair – Socio economic groupingPremium potatoes Standard potatoes Value potatoes
Level - Level p-Value Level - Level p-Value Level - Level p-ValueC1 A <.0001* C1 A <.0001* C1 A <.0001*B A <.0001* B A <.0001* B A <.0001*C2 A <.0001* C2 A <.0001* C2 A <.0001*D A <.0001* E A <.0001* E A <.0001*E A <.0001* D A <.0001* D A <.0001*C1 B <.0001* C1 B <.0001* C1 B <.0001*E D 0.5177 E D 0.1437 E D 0.3134C2 B 0.0523 C2 B 0.0728 C2 B 0.0668D C2 <.0001* E C2 0.0024* E C2 0.0506E C2 <.0001* D C2 <.0001* D C2 0.0030*D B <.0001* E B <.0001* E B 0.0002*E B <.0001* D B <.0001* D B <.0001*C2 C1 <.0001* C2 C1 <.0001* C2 C1 <.0001*D C1 <.0001* E C1 <.0001* E C1 <.0001*E C1 <.0001* D C1 <.0001* D C1 <.0001*
* Denotes statistically significant results P=95%
81
ANNEX 8-3 – Impact of socioeconomic grouping on purchasing of strawberries across different quality tiers
Socio Economic Group
A B C1 C2 D E
Prem
ium
str
awbe
rrie
s pu
rcha
se (%
)
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
Socio Economic Group
A B C1 C2 D E
Stan
dard
str
awbe
rrie
s pu
rcha
se (%
)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Socio Economic Group
A B C1 C2 D E
Valu
e st
raw
berr
ies
purc
hase
(%)
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
Figure A8-3. Average value, standard and premium strawberries (%) purchased in each socioeconomic grouping category out of the total annual strawberries purchased.
Wilcoxon non parametric comparison for each pair – Socio economic groupingPremium strawberries Standard strawberries Value strawberries
Level - Level p-Value Level - Level p-Value Level - Level p-ValueC1 A <.0001* C1 A <.0001* C1 A <.0001*B A <.0001* B A <.0001* B A <.0001*C2 A <.0001* C2 A <.0001* C2 A <.0001*E A <.0001* E A <.0001* E A <.0001*D A 0.0001* D A <.0001* D A <.0001*C1 B 0.2428 C1 B <.0001* C1 B 0.1790E D 0.2687 E D 0.4586 E D 0.6736E C2 0.0018* C2 B 0.0641 C2 B 0.0630C2 B 0.0081* E C2 <.0001* E C2 0.0377*D C2 <.0001* D C2 <.0001* D C2 0.0122*C2 C1 0.0002* E B <.0001* C2 C1 0.0015*E B <.0001* D B <.0001* E B <.0001*D B <.0001* C2 C1 <.0001* D B <.0001*E C1 <.0001* E C1 <.0001* E C1 <.0001*D C1 <.0001* D C1 <.0001* D C1 <.0001*
* Denotes statistically significant results P=95%
82
ANNEX 9-1 – Impact of region on purchasing of apples across different quality tiers
Region
LondonMidlands
North East Yorkshire
Lancashire SouthScotland
Anglia
Wales & West
South West
Prem
ium
app
les
purc
hase
(%)
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
Region
LondonMidlands
North East Yorkshire
Lancashire SouthScotland
Anglia
Wales & West
South West
Stan
dard
app
les
purc
hase
(%)
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
Region
LondonMidlands
North East Yorkshire
Lancashire SouthScotland
Anglia
Wales & West
South West
Valu
e ap
ples
pur
chas
e (%
)
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
Figure A9-1. Average value, standard and premium apples (%) purchased in each region out of the total annual apples purchased.
Wilcoxon non parametric comparison for each pair – RegionPremium apples Standard apples Value apples
Level - Level p-Value
Level - Level p-Value Level - Level p-Value
London Anglia <.0001* London Anglia <.0001* Midlands Anglia <.0001*London Lancashire <.0001* Midlands Anglia <.0001* London Anglia <.0001*Midlands Anglia 0.0002* London Lancashire <.0001* Yorkshire South West <.0001*Midlands Lancashire 0.0008* Midlands Lancashire <.0001* South North East <.0001*South North East 0.0002* Yorkshire South West <.0001* Yorkshire North East <.0001*Yorkshire South West 0.0002* South North East <.0001* Midlands Lancashire 0.0017*Scotland North East 0.0074* Yorkshire North East <.0001* Wales & West South West <.0001*Yorkshire North East 0.0101* Wales & West South West <.0001* London Lancashire 0.0054*Wales & West South West 0.0075* Scotland North East <.0001* Wales & West North East 0.0005*South Anglia 0.1417 Lancashire Anglia 0.0030* Lancashire Anglia 0.0115*Wales & West North East 0.1330 Wales & West North East 0.0012* South Scotland 0.0139*South Scotland 0.2517 South Scotland 0.0060* Scotland North East 0.0037*South Lancashire 0.2845 South Anglia 0.0093* Yorkshire Scotland 0.0513Yorkshire Wales & West 0.2755 Yorkshire Wales & West 0.0213* South Anglia 0.0925Lancashire Anglia 0.6866 Yorkshire Scotland 0.1264 Yorkshire Wales &
West0.1775
Scotland Anglia 0.7478 Yorkshire Anglia 0.1678 Yorkshire Anglia 0.2447Yorkshire Anglia 0.8307 Scotland Anglia 0.8708 Wales & West Scotland 0.5559Scotland Lancashire 0.9354 Midlands London 0.8987 Midlands London 0.7159Yorkshire Scotland 0.9132 South Lancashire 0.7119 Wales & West Anglia 0.8546Yorkshire Lancashire 0.8496 Wales & West Scotland 0.4486 Yorkshire South 0.6077South West North East 0.2291 Wales & West Anglia 0.3555 South West North East 0.4291Wales & West Anglia 0.3791 Yorkshire South 0.2197 Scotland Anglia 0.4391Wales & West Scotland 0.2308 Yorkshire Lancashire 0.1091 South Lancashire 0.3913
83
Wilcoxon non parametric comparison for each pair – RegionPremium apples Standard apples Value apples
Level - Level p-Value
Level - Level p-Value Level - Level p-Value
Wales & West Lancashire 0.1997 South West North East 0.0041* Yorkshire Lancashire 0.1721Yorkshire South 0.2083 Scotland Lancashire 0.0018* Wales & West South 0.0622Midlands London 0.3065 Wales & West South 0.0004* Wales & West Lancashire 0.0068*North East Anglia 0.0179* North East Anglia <.0001* South West Scotland 0.0002*Wales & West South 0.0194* Wales & West Lancashire <.0001* North East Anglia 0.0003*North East Lancashire 0.0058* South West Scotland <.0001* Scotland Lancashire 0.0009*South West Anglia 0.0005* South West Anglia <.0001* South West Anglia <.0001*South Midlands 0.0206* North East Lancashire <.0001* South London 0.0003*South West Scotland 0.0001* South Midlands <.0001* South Midlands <.0001*South West Lancashire 0.0001* South London <.0001* Yorkshire London <.0001*Scotland Midlands 0.0006* South West South <.0001* Yorkshire Midlands <.0001*Yorkshire Midlands 0.0004* South West Lancashire <.0001* South West South <.0001*South London 0.0009* Yorkshire Midlands <.0001* North East Lancashire <.0001*South West South <.0001* Yorkshire London <.0001* Wales & West London <.0001*Wales & West Midlands <.0001* Scotland Midlands <.0001* South West Lancashire <.0001*Scotland London <.0001* Scotland London <.0001* Wales & West Midlands <.0001*Yorkshire London <.0001* Wales & West Midlands <.0001* Scotland London <.0001*North East Midlands <.0001* Wales & West London <.0001* Scotland Midlands <.0001*Wales & West London <.0001* North East Midlands <.0001* North East London <.0001*South West Midlands <.0001* North East London <.0001* North East Midlands <.0001*North East London <.0001* South West Midlands <.0001* South West London <.0001*South West London <.0001* South West London <.0001* South West Midlands <.0001*
* Denotes statistically significant results P=95%
84
ANNEX 9-2 – Impact of region on purchasing of potatoes across different quality tiers
Region
LondonMidlands
North East Yorkshire
Lancashire SouthScotland
Anglia
Wales & West
South West
Prem
ium
pot
ato
purc
hase
(%)
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
Region
LondonMidlands
North East Yorkshire
Lancashire SouthScotland
Anglia
Wales & West
South West
Stan
dard
pot
atoe
s pu
rcha
se (%
)
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
Region
LondonMidlands
North East Yorkshire
Lancashire SouthScotland
Anglia
Wales & West
South West
Valu
e po
tato
es p
urch
ase
(%)
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
Figure A9-2. Average value, standard and premium potatoes (%) purchased in each region out of the total annual potatoes purchased.
Wilcoxon non parametric comparison for each pair – RegionPremium potatoes Standard potatoes Value potatoes
Level - Level p-Value Level - Level p-Value Level - Level p-ValueLondon Anglia <.0001* London Anglia <.0001* London Anglia <.0001*Midlands Anglia <.0001* Midlands Anglia <.0001* Midlands Anglia <.0001*London Lancashire <.0001* Yorkshire South West <.0001* Yorkshire South West <.0001*Midlands Lancashire <.0001* Midlands Lancashire <.0001* South North East <.0001*Yorkshire South West <.0001* London Lancashire <.0001* London Lancashire <.0001*South North East <.0001* South North East <.0001* Yorkshire North East <.0001*Wales & West
South West <.0001* Wales & West
South West <.0001* Midlands Lancashire 0.0002*
Yorkshire North East 0.0004* Yorkshire North East <.0001* Wales & West
South West <.0001*
South Anglia 0.0019* Scotland North East <.0001* Scotland North East 0.0002*Lancashire Anglia 0.0032* Lancashire Anglia 0.0016* Wales &
WestNorth East 0.0004*
Scotland North East 0.0020* Wales & West
North East 0.0009* Lancashire Anglia 0.0032*
South Scotland 0.0187* South Anglia 0.0108* South Anglia 0.0755Wales & West
North East 0.0442* South Scotland 0.0175* South Scotland 0.0933
Yorkshire Wales & West
0.1171 Yorkshire Wales & West 0.0304* Yorkshire Wales & West
0.1030
85
Wilcoxon non parametric comparison for each pair – RegionPremium potatoes Standard potatoes Value potatoes
Level - Level p-Value Level - Level p-Value Level - Level p-ValueYorkshire Anglia 0.2209 Yorkshire Anglia 0.1879 Yorkshire Anglia 0.1152Scotland Anglia 0.4456 Yorkshire Scotland 0.2518 Yorkshire Scotland 0.1413Yorkshire Scotland 0.6447 Scotland Anglia 0.8743 Scotland Anglia 0.9161South Lancashire 0.8722 Midlands London 0.9702 Wales &
WestAnglia 0.9552
Wales & West
Anglia 0.7332 South Lancashire 0.5537 Wales & West
Scotland 0.8728
Wales & West
Scotland 0.2690 Wales & West
Anglia 0.4008 Yorkshire South 0.8319
Midlands London 0.2566 Wales & West
Scotland 0.3197 Midlands London 0.7694
Yorkshire Lancashire 0.0841 Yorkshire South 0.2112 South West North East 0.1036Yorkshire South 0.0585 Yorkshire Lancashire 0.0651 South Lancashire 0.2489North East Anglia 0.0192* South West North East 0.0009* Yorkshire Lancashire 0.1717South West North East 0.0057* Scotland Lancashire 0.0029* Wales &
WestSouth 0.0667
Scotland Lancashire 0.0287* Wales & West
South 0.0007* Scotland Lancashire 0.0046*
Wales & West
Lancashire 0.0010* North East Anglia <.0001* Wales & West
Lancashire 0.0027*
Wales & West
South 0.0006* Wales & West
Lancashire <.0001* North East Anglia 0.0003*
South West Anglia <.0001* South West Anglia <.0001* South West Anglia <.0001*South West Scotland <.0001* South West Scotland <.0001* South West Scotland <.0001*North East Lancashire <.0001* North East Lancashire <.0001* South Midlands <.0001*South Midlands <.0001* South London <.0001* Yorkshire Midlands <.0001*South London <.0001* South Midlands <.0001* South London <.0001*South West Lancashire <.0001* South West South <.0001* South West South <.0001*Yorkshire Midlands <.0001* Yorkshire London <.0001* North East Lancashire <.0001*South West South <.0001* Yorkshire Midlands <.0001* Yorkshire London <.0001*Scotland Midlands <.0001* South West Lancashire <.0001* South West Lancashire <.0001*Yorkshire London <.0001* Scotland Midlands <.0001* Scotland Midlands <.0001*Wales & West
Midlands <.0001* Scotland London <.0001* Wales & West
Midlands <.0001*
Scotland London <.0001* Wales & West
Midlands <.0001* Scotland London <.0001*
Wales & West
London <.0001* Wales & West
London <.0001* Wales & West
London <.0001*
North East Midlands <.0001* North East Midlands <.0001* North East Midlands <.0001*North East London <.0001* North East London <.0001* North East London <.0001*South West Midlands <.0001* South West Midlands <.0001* South West Midlands <.0001*
* Denotes statistically significant results P=95%
86
ANNEX 9-3 – Impact of region on purchasing of strawberries across different quality tiers
Region
LondonMidlands
North East Yorkshire
Lancashire SouthScotland
Anglia
Wales & West
South West
Prem
ium
str
awbe
rrie
s pu
rcha
se (%
)
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
Region
LondonMidlands
North East Yorkshire
Lancashire SouthScotland
Anglia
Wales & West
South West
Stan
dard
str
awbe
rrie
s pu
rcha
se (%
)
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
Region
LondonMidlands
North East Yorkshire
Lancashire SouthScotland
Anglia
Wales & West
South West
Valu
e st
raw
berr
ies
purc
hase
(%)
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
Figure A9-3. Average value, standard and premium strawberries (%) purchased in each region out of the total annual strawberries purchased.
Wilcoxon non parametric comparison for each pair – RegionPremium strawberries Standard strawberries Value strawberries
Level - Level p-Value Level - Level p-Value Level - Level p-ValueLondon Anglia <.0001* London Anglia <.0001* London Anglia <.0001*London Lancashire <.0001* Midlands Anglia <.0001* Midlands Anglia <.0001*Midlands Anglia <.0001* London Lancashire <.0001* London Lancashire 0.0001*Midlands Lancashire <.0001* Yorkshire South West <.0001* Midlands Lancashire 0.0002*South North East 0.0002* Midlands Lancashire <.0001* South North East <.0001*South Anglia 0.0164* South North East <.0001* Yorkshire North East <.0001*South Lancashire 0.0237* Yorkshire North East <.0001* Yorkshire South West <.0001*South Scotland 0.0476* Wales &
WestSouth West <.0001* South Scotland 0.0138*
Yorkshire Wales & West
0.0325* Scotland North East <.0001* Lancashire Anglia 0.0189*
Scotland North East 0.0768 Yorkshire Wales & West 0.0098* Scotland North East 0.0116*Yorkshire North East 0.0770 Lancashire Anglia 0.0185* Wales &
WestNorth East 0.0144*
Yorkshire South West 0.1595 South Scotland 0.0204* Yorkshire Wales & West
0.0445*
Scotland Anglia 0.6633 Wales & West
North East 0.0066* South Anglia 0.0592
Yorkshire Anglia 0.6680 South Anglia 0.0276* Yorkshire Scotland 0.0517South West North East 0.7128 Yorkshire Scotland 0.2831 Wales &
WestSouth West 0.0253*
87
Wilcoxon non parametric comparison for each pair – RegionPremium strawberries Standard strawberries Value strawberries
Level - Level p-Value Level - Level p-Value Level - Level p-ValueScotland Lancashire 0.7719 Yorkshire Anglia 0.3403 Yorkshire Anglia 0.1704Yorkshire Lancashire 0.7766 Scotland Anglia 0.9016 South West North East 0.8251Lancashire Anglia 0.8860 South Lancashire 0.8790 Wales &
WestScotland 0.9444
Yorkshire Scotland 0.9962 Midlands London 0.4383 Midlands London 0.9586Wales & West
North East 0.6973 Yorkshire South 0.2098 Scotland Anglia 0.5684
Wales & West
South West 0.4489 Wales & West
Scotland 0.1317 South Lancashire 0.6348
South West Anglia 0.3273 Yorkshire Lancashire 0.1602 Yorkshire South 0.6051South West Lancashire 0.2606 Wales &
WestAnglia 0.1025 Wales &
WestAnglia 0.5230
North East Anglia 0.1792 South West North East 0.0055* Yorkshire Lancashire 0.3230South West Scotland 0.1584 Scotland Lancashire 0.0135* South West Scotland 0.0209*North East Lancashire 0.1366 Wales &
WestSouth 0.0001* South West Anglia 0.0043*
Wales & West
Anglia 0.0849 North East Anglia <.0001* Wales & West
South 0.0116*
Wales & West
Lancashire 0.0624 Wales & West
Lancashire <.0001* North East Anglia 0.0022*
Wales & West
Scotland 0.0321* South West Scotland <.0001* Scotland Lancashire 0.0035*
Midlands London 0.2196 South West Anglia <.0001* Wales & West
Lancashire 0.0029*
Yorkshire South 0.0466* North East Lancashire <.0001* South West South <.0001*South Midlands 0.0561 South Midlands <.0001* South West Lancashire <.0001*South West South 0.0009* South London <.0001* North East Lancashire <.0001*Wales & West
South <.0001* Yorkshire Midlands <.0001* South Midlands <.0001*
South London 0.0018* South West South <.0001* South London <.0001*Scotland Midlands 0.0001* South West Lancashire <.0001* Yorkshire Midlands <.0001*Yorkshire Midlands 0.0001* Yorkshire London <.0001* Yorkshire London <.0001*South West Midlands <.0001* Scotland Midlands <.0001* Scotland Midlands <.0001*North East Midlands <.0001* Scotland London <.0001* Wales &
WestMidlands <.0001*
Wales & West
Midlands <.0001* Wales & West
Midlands <.0001* Scotland London <.0001*
Scotland London <.0001* Wales & West
London <.0001* Wales & West
London <.0001*
Yorkshire London <.0001* North East Midlands <.0001* South West Midlands <.0001*South West London <.0001* North East London <.0001* South West London <.0001*North East London <.0001* South West Midlands <.0001* North East Midlands <.0001*Wales & West
London <.0001* South West London <.0001* North East London <.0001*
* Denotes statistically significant results P=95%
88
89
ANNEX 10 – Impact of gender on purchasing of apples, potatoes and strawberries across different quality tiers
Table A10-1. Average value, standard and premium apples, potatoes and strawberries (%) purchased by each sex out of the total annual apples, potatoes and strawberries purchased
Percentage of purchases
Product Quality tier Female Male
Value 75.42 24.58
Apples Standard 76.74 23.26
Premium 78.83 21.17
Value 78.49 21.51
Potatoes Standard 76.25 23.75
Premium 75.41 24.59
Value 79.13 20.87
Strawberries Standard 78.24 21.76
Premium 73.61 26.39
90
ANNEX 11-1 – Impact of age on purchasing of apples across different quality tiers
Age group
Under 30 30-39 40-49 50-59 60-69 70-79 80 and over
Prem
ium
app
les
purc
hase
(%)
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
Age group
Under 30 30-39 40-49 50-59 60-69 70-79 80 and over
Stan
dard
app
les
purc
hase
(%)
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
Age group
Under 30 30-39 40-49 50-59 60-69 70-79 80 and over
Valu
e ap
ples
pur
chas
e (%
)
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
Figure A11-1. Average value, standard and premium apples (%) purchased in each age range out of the total annual apples purchased
Wilcoxon non parametric comparison for each pair – AgePremium apples Standard apples Value apples
Level - Level p-Value Level - Level p-Value Level - Level
p-Value
Under 30
80+ <.0001* Under 30 80+ <.0001* Under 30 80+ <.0001*
40-49 30-39 0.1879 40-49 30-39 0.8358 50-59 40-49 0.317550-59 30-39 0.9448 60-69 50-59 0.6685 50-59 30-39 0.460760-69 30-39 0.8397 50-59 30-39 0.6309 40-49 30-39 0.798860-69 50-59 0.7862 50-59 40-49 0.4920 60-69 40-49 0.676350-59 40-49 0.2113 60-69 30-39 0.3658 60-69 30-39 0.4970Under 30
70-79 0.0702 60-69 40-49 0.2692 70-79 60-69 0.2247
60-69 40-49 0.1293 Under 30 70-79 0.0464* 60-69 50-59 0.155370-79 60-69 0.0248* 70-79 60-69 0.0011* 70-79 40-49 0.102570-79 30-39 0.0144* 70-79 50-59 0.0002* 70-79 30-39 0.058770-79 50-59 0.0118* 70-79 30-39 <.0001* 70-79 50-59 0.0084*Under 30
60-69 <.0001* 70-79 40-49 <.0001* Under 30 70-79 <.0001*
70-79 40-49 0.0002* Under 30 60-69 <.0001* Under 30 60-69 <.0001*Under 30
30-39 <.0001* Under 30 50-59 <.0001* Under 30 40-49 <.0001*
Under 30
50-59 <.0001* Under 30 30-39 <.0001* Under 30 30-39 <.0001*
80+ 70-79 <.0001* Under 30 40-49 <.0001* Under 30 50-59 <.0001*Under 30
40-49 <.0001* 80+ 70-79 <.0001* 80+ 70-79 <.0001*
91
Wilcoxon non parametric comparison for each pair – AgePremium apples Standard apples Value apples
Level - Level p-Value Level - Level p-Value Level - Level
p-Value
80+ 60-69 <.0001* 80+ 60-69 <.0001* 80+ 60-69 <.0001*80+ 30-39 <.0001* 80+ 50-59 <.0001* 80+ 40-49 <.0001*80+ 50-59 <.0001* 80+ 30-39 <.0001* 80+ 30-39 <.0001*80+ 40-49 <.0001* 80+ 40-49 <.0001* 80+ 50-59 <.0001*
* Denotes statistically significant results P=95%
92
ANNEX 11-2 – Impact of age on purchasing of potatoes across different quality tiers
Age group
Under 30 30-39 40-49 50-59 60-69 70-79 80 and over
Prem
ium
pot
atoe
s pu
rcha
se (%
)
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
Age group
Under 30 30-39 40-49 50-59 60-69 70-79 80 and over
Stan
dard
pot
ato
purc
hase
(%)
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
Age group
Under 30 30-39 40-49 50-59 60-69 70-79 80 and over
Valu
e po
tato
es p
urch
ase
(%)
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
Figure A11-2. Average value, standard and premium potatoes (%) purchased in each age range out of the total annual potatoes purchasedWilcoxon non parametric comparison for each pair – Age
Premium potatoes Standard potatoes Value potatoesLevel - Level p-Value Level - Level p-Value Level -
Levelp-Value
Under 30
80 + <.0001* Under 30 80 + <.0001* Under 30 80+ <.0001*
60-69 30-39 <.0001* 40-49 30-39 0.5958 40-49 30-39 0.430250-59 30-39 0.0019* 50-59 30-39 0.8208 50-59 30-39 0.840660-69 40-49 0.0149* 60-69 30-39 0.8066 60-69 30-39 0.720440-49 30-39 0.0115* 50-59 40-49 0.7642 60-69 50-59 0.573760-69 50-59 0.0643 60-69 50-59 0.6354 50-59 40-49 0.555170-79 30-39 0.2884 60-69 40-49 0.4425 60-69 40-49 0.247650-59 40-49 0.5559 Under 30 70-79 0.0731 Under 30 70-79 0.0179*70-79 40-49 0.1443 70-79 60-69 0.0001* 70-79 60-69 0.0079*70-79 50-59 0.0417* 70-79 30-39 <.0001* 70-79 30-39 0.0027*70-79 60-69 0.0001* 70-79 50-59 <.0001* 70-79 50-59 0.0013*Under 30
30-39 <.0001* 70-79 40-49 <.0001* 70-79 40-49 0.0001*
Under 30
70-79 <.0001* Under 30 60-69 <.0001* Under 30 60-69 <.0001*
Under 30
40-49 <.0001* Under 30 30-39 <.0001* Under 30 30-39 <.0001*
Under 30
50-59 <.0001* Under 30 50-59 <.0001* Under 30 50-59 <.0001*
Under 30
60-69 <.0001* Under 30 40-49 <.0001* Under 30 40-49 <.0001*
80 + 30-39 <.0001* 80 + 70-79 <.0001* 80+ 70-79 <.0001*
93
Wilcoxon non parametric comparison for each pair – AgePremium potatoes Standard potatoes Value potatoes
Level - Level p-Value Level - Level p-Value Level - Level
p-Value
80 + 70-79 <.0001* 80 + 60-69 <.0001* 80+ 60-69 <.0001*80 + 40-49 <.0001* 80 + 30-39 <.0001* 80+ 30-39 <.0001*80 + 50-59 <.0001* 80 + 50-59 <.0001* 80+ 50-59 <.0001*80 + 60-69 <.0001* 80 + 40-49 <.0001* 80+ 40-49 <.0001*
* Denotes statistically significant results P=95%
94
ANNEX 11-3 – Impact of age on purchasing of strawberries across different quality tiers
Age group
Under 30 30-39 40-49 50-59 60-69 70-79 80 and over
Prem
ium
str
awbe
rrie
s pu
rcha
se (%
)
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
Age group
Under 30 30-39 40-49 50-59 60-69 70-79 80 and over
Stan
dard
str
awbe
rrie
s pu
rcha
se (%
)
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
Age group
Under 30 30-39 40-49 50-59 60-69 70-79 80 and over
Valu
e st
raw
berr
ies
purc
hase
(%)
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
Figure A11-3. Average value, standard and premium strawberries (%) purchased in each age range out of the total annual strawberries purchased
Wilcoxon non parametric comparison for each pair – AgePremium strawberries Standard strawberries Value strawberries
Level - Level p-Value
Level - Level p-Value Level - Level
p-Value
Under 30
80 + <.0001* Under 30 80 + <.0001* Under 30 80 + <.0001*
70-79 40-49 0.2094 60-69 40-49 0.6203 60-69 50-59 0.871050-59 40-49 0.2351 50-59 40-49 0.7720 40-49 30-39 0.975560-69 40-49 0.3316 60-69 50-59 0.8347 60-69 40-49 0.528570-79 30-39 0.6474 60-69 30-39 0.9292 60-69 30-39 0.505450-59 30-39 0.6953 50-59 30-39 0.9023 50-59 40-49 0.427570-79 60-69 0.7750 40-49 30-39 0.6803 50-59 30-39 0.408460-69 30-39 0.8631 Under 30 70-79 0.0530 Under 30 70-79 0.0457*70-79 50-59 0.9481 70-79 40-49 0.0010* 70-79 50-59 0.0449*60-69 50-59 0.8246 70-79 50-59 0.0004* 70-79 60-69 0.0291*40-49 30-39 0.4242 70-79 30-39 0.0002* 70-79 40-49 0.0051*Under 30
40-49 0.0103* 70-79 60-69 0.0002* 70-79 30-39 0.0047*
Under 30
30-39 0.0009* Under 30 40-49 <.0001* Under 30 50-59 <.0001*
Under 30
60-69 0.0005* Under 30 50-59 <.0001* Under 30 60-69 <.0001*
Under 30
50-59 0.0002* Under 30 30-39 <.0001* Under 30 40-49 <.0001*
Under 30
70-79 0.0002* Under 30 60-69 <.0001* Under 30 30-39 <.0001*
80 + 40-49 <.0001* 80 + 70-79 <.0001* 80 + 70-79 <.0001*
95
Wilcoxon non parametric comparison for each pair – AgePremium strawberries Standard strawberries Value strawberries
Level - Level p-Value
Level - Level p-Value Level - Level
p-Value
80 + 30-39 <.0001* 80 + 40-49 <.0001* 80 + 50-59 <.0001*80 + 60-69 <.0001* 80 + 50-59 <.0001* 80 + 60-69 <.0001*80 + 50-59 <.0001* 80 + 60-69 <.0001* 80 + 40-49 <.0001*80 + 70-79 <.0001* 80 + 30-39 <.0001* 80 + 30-39 <.0001*
* Denotes statistically significant results P=95%
96
ANNEX 12-1 – Volume of apples purchased per person in households
Social class
A B C1 C2 D E
App
les
purc
hase
d p
er p
erso
n pe
r hou
seho
ld (g
r)
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
16000
18000
Age group
Under 30 30-39 40-49 50-59 60-69 70-79 80 and over
App
les
purc
hase
d p
er p
erso
n pe
r hou
seho
ld (g
r)
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
35000
Figure A12-1: Grams of apple purchased per person living in the households per annum according to employment status, socioeconomic grouping, and age. Error bars represent the Standard error of the mean
Wilcoxon non parametric comparison for each pair – Apples purchases per person in householdEmployment group Social Class Age group
Level - Level p-Value Level
- Level p-Value Level - Level p-Value
Over 30 Hrs Not working <.0001* C1 B 0.6026 70-79 40-49 0.0005*Unemployed Retired 0.0051* C1 A 0.9421 70-79 30-39 0.0010*Over 30 Hrs Full time education 0.1537 B A 0.9102 80 and over 40-49 0.0686Unemployed Not working 0.0003* D C2 0.4689 80 and over 30-39 0.0745Over 30 Hrs 8-29 Hrs 0.0335* C2 A 0.6263 60-69 40-49 0.0106*Retired Not working 0.0324* D A 0.4776 60-69 30-39 0.0208*Unemployed 8-29 Hrs 0.0415* C2 B 0.3342 70-79 50-59 0.0547Unemployed Over 30 Hrs 0.2992 E D 0.0722 80 and over 50-59 0.2119Unemployed Under 8 Hrs 0.0001* D B 0.1044 50-59 40-49 0.1023Retired Full time education 0.6051 E A 0.1730 50-59 30-39 0.1750Unemployed Full time education 0.0688 C2 C1 0.1125 80 and over 60-69 0.3275Under 8 Hrs Full time education 0.4757 D C1 0.0318* 70-79 60-69 0.2991Not working Full time education 0.8166 E C2 0.0094* 60-69 50-59 0.3666Under 8 Hrs Not working 0.3215 E B 0.0005* 80 and over 70-79 0.5728Retired 8-29 Hrs 0.2659 E C1 <.0001* 40-49 30-39 0.7044Full time education
8-29 Hrs 0.4313 Under 30 40-49 0.0192*
Not working 8-29 Hrs 0.0057* Under 30 30-39 0.0060*Under 8 Hrs 8-29 Hrs 0.0047* Under 30 80 and over 0.0111*Under 8 Hrs Retired 0.0142* Under 30 50-59 0.0003*
Under 30 60-69 <.0001*Under 30 70-79 <.0001*
* Denotes statistically significant results P=95%
97
Employment group
Over 30 Hrs8-29 Hrs
Under 8 Hrs
UnemployedRetired
Full time education
Not working
App
les
purc
hase
d p
er p
erso
n pe
r hou
seho
ld (g
r)
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
ANNEX 12-2 – Grams of potato purchased per person living in the households per annum according to employment status, socioeconomic grouping, and age
Employment group
Over 30 Hrs8-29 Hrs
Under 8 Hrs
UnemployedRetired
Full time education
Not working
Pota
toes
pur
chas
ed p
er p
erso
n pe
r hou
seho
ld (g
r)
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
Social class
A B C1 C2 D E
Pota
toes
pur
chas
ed p
er p
erso
n pe
r hou
seho
ld (g
r)
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
50000
60000
70000
Age group
Under 30 30-39 40-49 50-59 60-69 70-79 80 and over
Pota
toes
pur
chas
ed p
er p
erso
n pe
r hou
seho
ld (g
r)
0
20000
40000
60000
80000
100000
Figure A12-2: Grams of potato purchased per person living in the households per annum according to employment status, socioeconomic grouping, and age. Error bars represent the Standard error of the mean
Wilcoxon non parametric comparison for each pair – Potatoes purchases per person in householdEmployment group Social Class Age group
Level - Level p-Value Level
- Level p-Value Level - Level p-Value
Retired 8-29 Hrs <.0001* C2 B 0.0002* 60-69 30-39 <.0001*Retired Full time education 0.0035* C1 B 0.0259* 70-79 30-39 <.0001*Retired Not working <.0001* D B 0.0100* 60-69 40-49 <.0001*Retired Over 30 Hrs <.0001* E B 0.0257* 70-79 40-49 <.0001*Over 30 Hrs Full time education 0.0496* C2 C1 0.0619 50-59 30-39 <.0001*Over 30 Hrs 8-29 Hrs 0.0015* C2 A 0.4484 80 and over 30-39 <.0001*Over 30 Hrs Not working 0.0163* D C1 0.4478 50-59 40-49 <.0001*Not working Full time education 0.2246 D A 0.6418 60-69 50-59 <.0001*Not working 8-29 Hrs 0.5668 E A 0.7080 70-79 50-59 <.0001*Under 8 Hrs Full time education 0.2435 E C1 0.7103 80 and over 40-49 0.0091*Under 8 Hrs 8-29 Hrs 0.6590 C1 A 0.8682 40-49 30-39 0.0002*Under 8 Hrs Not working 0.8972 E D 0.7624 80 and over 50-59 0.6767Unemployed Full time education 0.9011 D C2 0.3897 70-79 60-69 0.6032Unemployed Under 8 Hrs 0.2307 B A 0.6385 80 and over 70-79 0.0485*Unemployed 8-29 Hrs 0.2080 E C2 0.2252 80 and over 60-69 0.0621Unemployed Not working 0.1182 Under 30 30-39 <.0001*Under 8 Hrs Over 30 Hrs 0.2817 Under 30 80 and over <.0001*Full time education
8-29 Hrs 0.2599 Under 30 40-49 <.0001*
Unemployed Over 30 Hrs 0.0043* Under 30 50-59 <.0001*Under 8 Hrs Retired 0.0012* Under 30 70-79 <.0001*Unemployed Retired <.0001* Under 30 60-69 <.0001*
* Denotes statistically significant results P=95%98
ANNEX 12-3 – Grams of strawberry purchased per person living in the households per annum according to employment status, socioeconomic grouping, and age
Strawberries
Employment group
Over 30 Hrs8-29 Hrs
Under 8 Hrs
UnemployedRetired
Full time education
Not working
Stra
wbe
rrie
s pu
rcha
sed
per
per
son
per h
ouse
hold
(gr)
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
Social class
A B C1 C2 D ESt
raw
berr
ies
purc
hase
d p
er p
erso
n pe
r hou
seho
ld (g
r)0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
Age group
Under 30 30-39 40-49 50-59 60-69 70-79 80 and over
Stra
wbe
rrie
s pu
rcha
sed
per
per
son
per h
ouse
hold
(gr)
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
Figure A12-2: Grams of apple purchased per person living in the households per annum according to employment status, socioeconomic grouping, and age. Error bars represent the Standard error of the mean
Wilcoxon non parametric comparison for each pair – Strawberries purchases per person in householdEmployment group Social Class Age group
Level - Level p-Value Level
- Level p-Value Level - Level p-Value
Retired Not working <.0001* E D 0.2009 70-79 30-39 <.0001*Retired Over 30 Hrs <.0001* B A 0.8026 70-79 40-49 <.0001*Retired 8-29 Hrs <.0001* C1 B 0.2595 60-69 30-39 <.0001*Retired Full time education 0.0053* E C2 0.1188 60-69 40-49 <.0001*Over 30 Hrs Not working 0.0006* C1 A 0.5523 80 and over 30-39 0.0001*Over 30 Hrs Full time education 0.3059 C2 A 0.2979 80 and over 40-49 0.0004*Under 8 Hrs Not working 0.5945 C2 C1 0.1229 70-79 50-59 <.0001*Unemployed Not working 0.7047 E A 0.1184 50-59 30-39 <.0001*Under 8 Hrs Full time education 0.7195 C2 B 0.0153* 60-69 50-59 <.0001*Not working Full time education 0.9268 D A 0.0412* 50-59 40-49 0.0003*Over 30 Hrs 8-29 Hrs 0.9452 D C2 0.0028* 80 and over 50-59 0.0282*Unemployed Full time education 0.8694 E C1 0.0019* 70-79 60-69 0.0961Unemployed Under 8 Hrs 0.9556 E B 0.0002* 80 and over 60-69 0.6103Under 8 Hrs 8-29 Hrs 0.3023 D B <.0001* 40-49 30-39 0.6853Unemployed 8-29 Hrs 0.1859 D C1 <.0001* 80 and over 70-79 0.8932Full time education
8-29 Hrs 0.3419 Under 30 30-39 0.0024*
Under 8 Hrs Over 30 Hrs 0.2631 Under 30 40-49 0.0010*Unemployed Over 30 Hrs 0.1445 Under 30 80 and over <.0001*Not working 8-29 Hrs 0.0032* Under 30 50-59 <.0001*Under 8 Hrs Retired <.0001* Under 30 60-69 <.0001*
99
Wilcoxon non parametric comparison for each pair – Strawberries purchases per person in householdEmployment group Social Class Age group
Level - Level p-Value Level
- Level p-Value Level - Level p-Value
Unemployed Retired <.0001* Under 30 70-79 <.0001** Denotes statistically significant results P=95%
100
Notes
1 There are very few branded fruit and vegetable products in comparison to other food categories. 2 These estimates are from Horizons and IGD respectively.3 This classification is used by Horizons4 It is possible for households to purchase their fruit and vegetables directly from ‘cash and carry’ wholesalers. There are no data to quantify this route to market but it is thought to be very small.
101
