Does choosing convenience food reduce waste?

(1)

Does choosing convenience food reduce waste?

By

SUZANNE SCHREINER

University of Groningen

Faculty of Economics and Business

(2)

ABSTRACT

One third of the total food produced for human consumption worldwide ends up as waste. This leads to a negative social- and economic impacts, higher environmental costs, and more greenhouse gas emissions on a consumer level. A large portion of the waste can be attributed to people’s inconsistent preferences. People make other food choices at the moment of purchase in comparison to the moment of consumption. Thus, the amount of time between buying and consuming is hereby important. Liberman and Trope (1998) suggest that when the amount of time is short, people think in terms of feasibility, and when this time is longer, people think more in terms of desirability. In addition, Wansink et al. (2013) and Marlette et al. (2005) state that when food is pre-cut (and thus more feasible), less food is wasted. This paper examines whether choosing convenience food (minimally processed) over regular food can reduce waste. In total, 185 students completed and were allowed to choose between a convenience food package and a regular package to cook with, after which their food waste was measured. Students who had chosen the convenience package had significantly less waste than students who had chosen the regular package. Furthermore, the paper investigates

whether temporal distance (today vs. two days) influences the choice of a convenience or regular food package and whether the type of food (convenience vs. regular) mediates the effect of temporal distance on food waste. However, the results were not in line with the paper of Liberman and Trope’s (1998) study. No significant evidence was found for the theory that when the time between buying and consuming is shorter (today) versus longer (two days), people choose more convenience food over non-convenience food. Therefore, the choice of convenience (vs. regular) food that mediates the effect of temporal distance on food waste was not identified.

Keywords: Food waste, temporal distance, convenience food, regular food

Research theme: Food waste

(3)

1 INTRODUCTION

Globally one third of the total food produced for human consumption ends up as food waste (Gustavsson et al., 2011). This is equal to 1.3 billion tons of food per year consisting of fresh vegetables, fruit, meat, bakery and dairy products (FAO, 2011). In particular, developed countries contribute to this huge amount, wasting 220 million tons of food a year. The

developed countries waste as much food annually as the Sub-Saharan Africa produces in total (Gustavson et al. 2011). One of the largest contributors to the waste is the United States which, on a consumer level, wastes 124 kilograms per capita per year (Buzby and Hyman, 2012). Closely following are the European Union countries averaging 95 kilograms per capita (FAO, 2011), with the Czech Republic and Slovakia being the smallest contributors (25 kg) and the United Kingdom produces the most food waste at 133 kilograms per capita (Monier et al., 2009). It is estimated that, if we do not intervene, the food waste only becomes more. In 2050 there will be around 9.3 billion people on earth which leads to 70% more food waste than today (United Nations, 2013; FAO, 2009). This growing amount of food waste in the world leads to a negative social- and economic impacts, higher environmental costs and more greenhouse gas emissions at a consumer level (Stuart, 2009; WRAP, 2011). Although this increase suggests otherwise, people do not necessarily want to waste food. It makes them feel guilty and they dislike wasting both products and their money (Brook Lyndhurst, 2007). However, it is evident that these feelings do not overcome the causes of food waste, as consumer food waste is still on the rise (United Nations, 2013; FAO, 2009). Therefore, it is crucial to examine the causes of the increasing amount of food waste. The change in food trends over the last few decades could be investigated to explain this increase.

(5)

and Resources Action Programme (2007) shows that in the United Kingdom, convenience meals are wasted most often by households. One reason for this could be that people who are buying this type of food have lower waste awareness than people who do not buy

convenience food (Parizeau, von Massow and Martin, 2015). However, other researchers have opposing opinions (Brunner et al. 2010; Drijfhout, Van Doorn and van Ittersum, 2018; Mallinson, Rusell and Barker, 2016; Silvennoinen et al. 2014). According to Drijfhout, Van Doorn and Van Ittersum (2018), the amount of waste is lower for convenience food due to time of consumption. People who buy a convenience meal often consumer their purchase on the same day, whereas non-convenience food is not always eaten immediately. Due to

temporal distance, a consumer’s food preference can change between the moment of purchase and the moment of consumption (Laran, 2010). If the moments of purchase and consumption do not overlap, it can result in the original chosen food being wasted because of different preferences at the buying and consumption moments (Drijfhout, Van Doorn and Van Ittersum, 2018). Convenience food could contribute to less food waste when the distance between buying and consuming is reduced due to less preparation time and effort (Brunner et al. 2010). Brunner et al. (2010) describes time and effort as not only the actual physical time, but moreover the time and effort one mentally takes to prepare food (i.e. question: ‘what are we going to eat today?’).

This research, investigates whether the choice to purchase and consume convenience food reduces waste and if temporal distance influences the choice of convenience versus regular food. Because convenience food is a broad concept, the following definition will be used in this study: “minimally processed food items where some or all of the preparation time, culinary skills or energy inputs are provided by the food processor-distributor rather than in the home-maker’s kitchen” (Capps, Tedford and Havlicek, 1983, p. 1). Dutch students were asked to choose between these two types of food (convenience vs. non-convenience) after which their food waste was measured and analysed. The research question for this research is stated as: ‘Does choosing convenience food reduce waste?’ Moreover, the following sub-question will be discussed: ‘Does temporal distance affect the choice between

non-convenience and non-convenience foods?’ The structure of the paper is as follows. The next

(6)

2 LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Definition of food waste and societal consequences

The Food and Agriculture Organization (1981, p.3) defines food waste as: “Wholesome edible material intended for human consumption, arising at any point in the food supply chain that is instead discarded, lost, degraded or consumed by pets”. Stuart (2009, p. 9) adds: “but including edible material that is intentionally fed to animals or is a by-product of food processing diverted away from the human food”. The most often quoted estimate is that “as much as half of all food grown is lost or wasted before and after it reaches the consumer” (Lundqvist et al., 2008, p. 36). This research does not investigate the broad scope of food waste in the whole food supply chain, but only the food that is wasted due to preparing and consuming food by consumers because 40–60% of all food waste is generated at the household consumption stage (Griffin et al. 2009). Therefore, for this study the following definition is used: “food that is of good quality and fit for human consumption but that does not get consumed because it is discarded – either before or after it spoils” (Lipinski, Hanson, Lomax, Kitinoja, Waite and Searchinger, 2013, p. 1).

Along the food production process and supply chain, food and its by-products are never fully used and therefore wasted before they reach the consumer. Processes where food is lost before it reaching the consumer include when harvesting, threshing, drying, storing, primary processing such as cleaning, secondary such as cooking, quality control, packaging and distribution (Parfitt et al., 2010). The amount of food that is lost in the process is growing for a number of reasons. First, there is rapid urbanization worldwide, which requires an extensive food supply chain. Improvements in the infrastructure and transportation around the growing cities is required to maintain the affordability of food (United Nations, 2013). Secondly, less starchy food staples are being consumed. Instead, consumers eat more vegetables, fruits, meat and fish. A decline in starchy food staples takes place when incomes increase (United

Nations, 2013). This shift towards items with a shorter timeframe in which they are fit for consumption is linked with an increasing amount of food waste (Lundqvist et al., 2008). Lastly, globalization has a negative effect on food waste due to the high percentage of waste during transport (Parfitt et al., 2010).

(7)

per consumer annually (Thönissen, 2009). When looking at households, most of this waste is caused by parents, smaller households and younger people (Brook Lyndhurst, 2007; Parfitt et al., 2010). Moreover, there is a difference in food waste for different food types. The products that contributes to over 50% of food waste is vegetables, followed by bakery products (36%) and milk products (7%) (WRAP, 2009). The main reason that food is wasted in households is because it passes its expiration date. Another key contributor, accountable for 40% of the food waste, arises in the households when more food is cooked, prepared and served than is

consumed (Quested and Johnson, 2009). In addition, according to Cox and Downing (2007) there are more reasons why food in households is thrown away such as: ‘poor planning and changing plans’, ‘buying too much’, ‘prefer not to eat food that is left over and not knowing what to do with the leftovers through a lack of cooking skills’ or ‘when people value food hygiene as important’.

As mentioned in the introduction, the growing amount of food waste leads to negative consequences. It has a social impact because food waste contributes to the rise in global food prices, making food less available to the poorest people in the world. This has led to an increase in the amount of malnourished people (Stuart, 2009). In addition, it is estimated that the world population will increase by up to 10 billion people by 2050. To provide this

population with enough food, there must be an 70% increase in food production to overcome malnutrition and other health conditions (Booth and Smith, 2001). Food waste has a strong economic impact. For example, the combined costs of all food that is thrown away each year by an average family in the UK is approximately $600 (WRAP, 2011). It leads to higher environmental costs because the food waste contributes to the demand for extra agricultural activities, placing the shrinking forest under more pressure. In addition, food waste has major consequences for water pollution. It is estimated that 6.2 billion cubic metres of water per year is wasted on producing food that is later discarded. This is equivalent to 234 of litres of water per capita daily (FAO, 2013; Chapagain and James, 2011). Lastly, food waste

contributes to methane gases, which is an even more harmful contributor to global warming effects than carbon dioxide (IPCC, 2013).

(8)

consume a meal can be reduced by using convenience food. The convenience food sector is examined in this study and will be further explained in the next section.

2.2 The expansion of the convenience food sector

In addition to the definition in the introduction - minimally processed food items where some or all of the preparation time, culinary skills or energy inputs are provided by the food

processor-distributor rather than in the home-maker’s kitchen - this paper defines convenience food as preprocessed, pre-cut, precooked food without peels (Buckley et al. 2007), but not as a ready-to-eat meal (Olsen et al. 2012; Thompson, 1996). As an example, frozen food (i.e. frozen pizza) is excluded in this paper because frozen food only needs to be heated. As mentioned in the introduction, the convenience food sector is steadily growing (Mintel, 2005; Olsen et al., 2010).

(9)

2.3 Characteristics of consumers of convenience food

Younger people, in general, consume relatively more convenience food than older people (Brunner et al. 2010). There are three important reasons for this: first of all, there is a rising number of young people who are unable to cook properly for themselves when they leave home (Caraher, Dixon, Hill and Lang, 1999), Moreover, young people have grown up in an environment where convenient food is available everywhere (Brunner et al. 2010). Lastly, due to an increase in attending other activities, both personally and work-related, young people spend less time on preparing a meal (Koszewski and Kuo, 1996).

When a consumer is older, he or she will eat less convenience food because there is more time available for cooking. In addition, older people did not grow up with convenience food

products and could be unwilling to change their conventional cooking habits (Brunner et al. 2010). However, there is also research that stating that people change their consumption pattern when they become older because a shift in the importance of life values, such as having good health, and specific life events, such as marriage and having children (van der Horst, Brunner and Siegrist, 2010).

Furthermore, males consume more convenience food than females (Paeratakul et al., 2003; Mohr et al., 2007; Dave et al., 2009). Women are still mainly responsible for preparing and cooking meals (Ekström and Fürst, 2001; Sullivan, 1997; Olsen et al., 2007), while men either take a more practical or a reactional view on cooking (Aarseth and Olsen, 2008; Brunner et al. 2010).

In addition, household size is shown to directly affect food waste. When there are more people in a household, the total food waste is generally higher. However, the food waste per person will decreases, as the household size grows. Single person households therefore waste the most on average (Katajajuuri, Silvennoinen, Hartikainen, Heikkilä and Reinikainen, 2014). All of these demographics affect the demand for convenience food.

(10)

2015; Evans, 2012; Koivupuro et al., 2012). Secondly, papers from Wansink et al. (2013) and Malette et al. (2005) found that when people were presented with sliced forms of fruit and vegetables compared with non-sliced fruit and vegetables, less food was wasted. The

connection between convenience food and food waste will be further explained in section 2.6. 2.4 Conceptual model

The conceptual model, represented in Figure 1, consists of an independent variable,

dependent variable and a mediation effect. It is expected that when the temporal distance (IV) is shorter, people will choose convenience food more often (H1). This is due to a consumer’s changing desire at the moment of purchase in comparison to the moment of preparation (Drijfhout, Van Doorn and Van Ittersum, 2018). Sequentially, when the temporal distance is shorter, it is less feasible for people to prepare a proper meal due to time constraints.

Convenience food offers the solution because the time for preparing a meal is shorter (Mallinson, Rusell and Barker, 2016). In addition, it is expected that when people consume convenience food, less food is wasted (H2). For a non-convenience meal, more ingredients are used than for a convenience meal, which leads to more food waste (Brunner et al. 2010). This study will also investigate whether the food type has an influence on waste. Lastly, it is expected that people who choose convenience food (vs. regular food) have less waste than people choosing regular food, which mediates the direct effect of temporal distance on food waste (H3).

FIGURE 1

(11)

2.5 The effect of temporal distance on food type

As stated in the introduction, a consumer’s preferences can change between the moment of purchase and the consumption moment due to temporal distance (Laran, 2010). The

explanation for this can be found in the ‘Construal Level Theory’ which emphasizes that consumers will make other decisions in the near future in comparison to the more distant future (Liberman and Trope, 1998). “The Construal Level Theory (CLT) proposes that the temporal distance changes people’s responses to future events by changing the way people mentally represent those events” (Trope, 2010, p.441).

Mental construals can be divided into two forms: high-level construals and low-level

construals (Hamilton and Thompson, 2007; Liberman and Förster, 2009). People tend to use high-level construals for the distant-future events and low-level construals when considering near-future events (Hamilton and Thompson, 2007; Liberman and Trope, 1998).When people use high-level construals, they think more abstractly (i.e. in terms of desirability) whereas people who use low-level construals think more concretely (i.e. in terms of feasibility). For example, when people choose software for a new computer, they prefer a new, quick and difficult to learn software in the distant future over a slow, old and easy to learn software. But they prefer the old, slow and easy to learn software in the near future (Hamilton and

Thompson, 2007). With regard to food choices, there is often a mismatch between the moment of buying and consuming food (Laran, 2010).

(12)

When there is less time between the moment of purchasing food and consuming, people use low-level construals and think in terms of feasibility (Hamilton and Thompson, 2007) because they take into account that they have less time available to prepare a proper meal and will sooner decide to choose convenience food (Brunner et al. 2010). Therefore, the following hypothesis is formulated:

H1: When the temporal distance is shorter (immediate), consumers are more likely to choose

convenience food (versus regular food) than if the temporal distance is larger (two days).

2.6 The effect of food type on waste

Research shows that the way food is presented can affect the total consumption (Wansink, Just, Hanks and Smith, 2013). Previous research suggests that presenting meals in an attractive way for the consumer can reduce food waste (Betz, Buchli, Göbel and Müller, 2015). This attractiveness can be achieved by presenting the food more likeable, but also by presenting it more comfortable and more convenient to consume (Betz, Buchli, Göbel and Müller, 2015).

Wansink et al. (2013) found that Dutch children and parents who were presented with sliced forms of fruits and vegetables increased their consumption in comparison to others who were presented with non-sliced fruits and vegetables. This increase in consumption of sliced forms of fruit and vegetables led to a lower percentage of food waste. Wansink et al. (2013)

discovered there was a 6% decrease in waste on apples and a 48% decrease in the number of people consuming less than half of their food.

(13)

Therefore, for this study is expected that convenience food (e.g., sliced vegetables,

precooked) leads to less food waste (H2). The corresponding hypothesis is stated as follows: H2: Choosing convenience food over regular food reduces food waste.

The food waste produced by consumers can be based on the choices they make, both in the buying and the preparation process. For instance, different types of food might be preferred as a result of the time a consumer perceives to have between the moment of purchase and the moment of preparation (Liberman and Trope, 1998). The effect caused by temporal distance itself is expected to influence the food waste, as food might perish before consumption if the temporal distance is larger. Furthermore, the temporal distance also affects the choices a consumer makes in their process of selection and preparation of the food (Hamilton and Thompson, 2007; Liberman and Trope, 1998). The effects of convenience food and temporal distance are expected to strengthen the effect on food waste. As temporal distance is therefore not only directly affects food waste, but also affects the choice of convenience food, a

mediating effect is expected. Therefore, the final hypothesis is:

H3: The choice of convenience (vs. regular) food mediates the effect of temporal distance on

(14)

3 METHODOLOGY

3.1 Research design

For this study, students at the University of Groningen were asked to participate in exchange for a free meal box, a payment of 8 euro or course credits. Participating in the study was voluntary and the objective of the study was not mentioned. This study has a 2 x 1 design with the variable food type (convenience vs. non-convenience) and temporal distance (immediate vs. two days) as a condition to which the participants were assigned. The total sample comprised 224 respondents.

Students were asked to fill in a survey about grocery meal boxes (see Appendix A). They were assigned to either of two groups, each with different conditions for the temporal

distance. The first group were instructed to prepare their food two days after they received the package, whereas the second group had to prepare it on the same day as they received it. Both groups were asked to make a choice between their preferred selection of ingredients shown in Figure 2. The left selection of ingredients depicted in Figure 2 represents convenience food and those on the right represent non-convenience food for the meal. The meal was a

vegetarian Italian pasta with the same amount of ingredients (in grams), where the ingredients (mushrooms, red onion, tomatoes, bell pepper, macaroni) where cut for the convenience food box. The peels for the bell pepper and onion in the regular package were labelled as

unavoidable waste as both are inedible and therefore had to be taken into account when measuring the total food waste. The quantities and the prices for the two boxes were similar.

FIGURE 2

(15)

The participants answered survey questions to determine the reasoning behind the preferred choices (convenience vs. regular package). The desirability of a package and the feasibility of preparing it were expected to be affected by one’s meal preferences. These results and their relations to their assigned temporal distance were analysed. After the survey, the participants were given their choice in a paper bag (see Figure 3) to take home. The students were asked to return the remains within a week after preparing and consuming their meal so that the food waste could be weighted. The box contained a recipe for their meal, a questionnaire (see Appendix B) and bags to collect the leftovers of their meal. Respondents were asked to separate the waste from the various products in the bags. The questionnaire was used to provide insights into the participant’s behaviour and had to be filled in after they consumed their meal. After the participants had returned their leftovers, they were weighted by the researchers to determine the amount of food waste in grams.

FIGURE 3

Paper bags with meal box ingredients (convenience package left, regular package right)

3.2 Measures

(16)

75 grams of waste of bell pepper, 10.5 grams was subtracted.

The independent variable (temporal distance) was measured in days of time (today vs. in two days) between receiving the box and preparing the meal. The participants were asked to state their most important considerations in selecting their preferred choice. These considerations indicated whether the feasibility or the desirability of the products was most important for the participants. The question used to determine feasibility vs. desirability was: “When thinking of a meal that I have to prepare and consume in two days, I would like to prepare...”. In this question, answers had to be ranked to determine the participant’s preference for desirability and feasibility. The statements used to calculate feasibility are: ‘a fresh meal that is easy and quickly prepared’, ‘a meal that saves me time in the kitchen’, ‘a meal that does not consist of ingredients that ask for a lot of slicing and cutting when preparing the food’ and ‘a familiar meal that is easy to cook’ (Brunner et al. 2010; Buckley et al, 2007; Mallison, Russel and Barker, 2016). The statements used to determine the desirability are: ‘a fresh home-cooked meal with ingredients from scratch’, ‘a meal in which I can put effort during the preparation’, ‘a meal that does not consist of ingredients that ask for a lot of slicing and cutting when preparing the food’ and ‘a new recipe, where I do not mind spending time on’ (Brunner et al. 2010; Buckley et al, 2007; Mallison, Russel and Barker, 2016). Moreover, there was one neutral statement: ‘a meal that is tasty’. This gave a total of eight statements, which were ranked based on a participant’s preference from 1–8 based on each participant’s preference. The participants were then ranked on a scale by adding the ranks per statements, yielding a scale from 10 to 26 for feasibility. This score was based on feasibility having four statements that are ranked. The best score on feasibility would be to have these statements ranked 1 to 4, giving a score of 1+2+3+4 equals 10. The lowest score on feasibility would be ranks 5 to 8, yielding a score of 26 (i.e. 5+6+7+8). The scale for desirability, consisting of three questions, is obtained in the same way, yielding a score between 6 and 21 (i.e. 1+2+3 and 6+7+8

(17)

4 RESULTS

To test the formulated hypotheses, the software program IBM SPSS Statistics was used. Only the respondents who completed the entire study were included. Of the 224 respondents who began the study, 82% returned the waste, filled in the survey before and after returning the waste, and therefore completed this study. The other 18% (39 respondents) did not return their waste and were excluded. Therefore, the final sample comprises 185 respondents of which 65 were male students and 121 were female students. Most of the students are from Europe (N = 102, 55,2%) followed by Asian students (N = 52, 28.1%). Of the 185 respondents, 87 (47%) were in the ‘today’ condition and 98 (53%) were in the ‘two days’ condition.

The effect of temporal distance (today vs. two days) on food type (regular vs. convenience food). A chi-square test illustrates that students were not more likely to choose the

convenience package in the ‘today’ condition and the regular package in the ‘two days’ condition (χ2 (1) = 1.28, p = .257). As can be seen in Figure 4,students choose more convenience food (46%) in the ‘today’ condition compared with the ‘two days’ condition (37.8%) and more regular food (62.2%) in the ‘two days’ conditions compared with the ‘today’ condition (54.0%). Thus, although the direction is verifiably right, there is not a significant difference between the types of food and temporal distance.

FIGURE 4

Selected package in the ‘today’ and ‘two days’ condition

(18)

The effect of food type on food waste. A one-way ANOVA revealed that the waste was

significantly higher for the regular package (Mregular = 483.08 grams food waste, SE = 32.84,

F(1,182) = 3.98, p =.048) compared with the convenience package (Mconvenience = 383.39

grams food waste, SE = 37.18). Furthermore, a one-way ANCOVA was performed to see if this result held when the gender covariate gender was included. This yielded no other

conclusion and was in line with the previous test (F(1,182) = 7.286, p = .038). By means of a

t-test it can be concluded that the average amount of waste for females (M = 487.96, SD =

346.05) is higher than for males (M = 355,99, SD = 306.54). The difference was significant (t(183) = -2.575, p < 0.05).

FIGURE 5

The average total waste in grams for the regular- and convenience package

To examine the amount of waste from the products individually, another one-way ANOVA was conducted. A highly significant difference can be found for mushrooms (F(1, 185) = 6.808, p = .010), bell peppers (F(1,185) = 10.781, p = .001, see Table 1) and significance on a 90% -confidence level can be proved for red onion (F(1,182) = 3.311, p = .070). No

significant difference in waste can be found for macaroni and tomatoes (see Table 1).

(19)

TABLE 1

Results per product one-way ANOVA

Product Average waste in grams F(1,185)-value and p-value

Macaroni Regular: 323.19 F-value: 2.37

Convenience: 267.55 p-value: .126

Bell pepper Regular: 4.94 F-value: 10.78

Red onion Regular: 4.19 F-value: 3.31

Mushrooms Regular: 55.32 F-value: 6.81

Tomatoes Regular: 95.44 F-value: .269

One way to test the mediation of hypothesis 3, is through a PROCESS Hayes test. This will test whether temporal distance influences food waste through the mediator ‘food type’ and provide insight into the effects of temporal distance on food type and whether the effect of food type on food waste amplifies the total effect of temporal distance on the total food waste. An assumption for proving a mediation effect is that the A-path – the effect of temporal distance on food type – is significant (Hayes, 2009). However, the effect of temporal distance on food type is not significant in this case and therefore the test is not able to show a

mediation effect.

(20)

expected to not only affect the choice of a food type, but also mediate the effect of temporal distance on the choice of a food type.

The effect of feasibility vs. desirability on food type. A one-way ANOVA test was performed

to analyse the relations between the temporal distance (IV) and feasibility and desirability (DV). Thereafter, the relations between feasibility and desirability (IV) and food type (DV) was analysed. For measuring the scale on desirability, a score is given between 6 and 21 and feasibility on a scale between 10 and 26. as described in section 3.2. The data showed in table 2 reveals that temporal distance was not significant (F(1,177) = 0.005, p = 0.95) on either

feasibility or desirability (F(1,177) = 0.000, p = 0.99).

TABLE 2

The effect of TD on feasibility and desirability

However, the effect of feasibility (F(15,163) = 3.922,p < 0.001) and desirability (F(13,165) =

4.719,p < 0.001) on the package choice were both significant. When the participants ranked feasibility as important, there was a positive effect on choosing convenience food over regular food and when the participants ranked desirability as more important, it led to choosing more regular food over convenience food. Table 3 and 4 represents the highest and lowest score on feasibility and desirability, respectively, and the percentage of students who chose

convenience food over regular food with that score. In appendices C and D the full tables of the scores are presented.

Temporal distance Average score F(1,177)-value and p-value

Today feasibility: 19,68 F-value = 0.005, p-value = 0,95

desirability: 14,26 F-value = 0.000, p-value = 0,99

Two days feasibility: 19,65 F-value = 0.005, p-value = 0,95

(21)

TABLE 3

The effect of the feasibility scores on food type

Score on feasibility Percentage of participants

choosing convenience food F(15,163)-value and p-value

10 100% F-value = 3.922, p-value < 0,001

26 0% F-value = 3.922, p-value < 0,001

Total 42% F-value = 3.922, p-value < 0,001

TABLE 4

The effect of the desirability scores on food type

Score on desirability

Percentage of participants

choosing convenience food F(15,163)-value and p-value

8 0% F-value = 4.719, p-value < 0,001

21 50% F-value = 4.719, p-value < 0,001

Total 42% F-value = 4.719, p-value < 0,001

(22)

5 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

This paper examines whether convenience food can reduce the amount of consumer food waste, whether temporal distance (today vs. two days) influences the choice of a convenience or regular meal, and if the type of food (convenience vs. regular) mediates the effect of

temporal distance on food waste. Food waste is considered to be a global problem as one third of the total food produced for consumers ends up as waste. This results in negative social- and economic impacts (Gustavsson et al., 2011). This paper contributes to a possible solution for this problem. Research by Wansink et al. (2013) and Marlette et al. (2005) found that preparing food so that it is less inconvenient (pre-sliced) lowers the amount of food waste. This paper delved deeper into this possible solution. The main results reported in chapter 4 will be discussed and summarized in this chapter.

The most important finding from this research is that choosing convenience food over regular food reduces food waste. In addition, when examining the amount of waste per product, a significant difference was found for mushrooms, bell peppers and red onions. One could argue that the macaroni – which was quick-boiling – and the canned tomatoes were considered as less convenient, as these products were not suitable to be pre-cut. These

products have not been tested previously; therefore, it is not possible to compare the results on these products with earlier literature. Mushrooms, bell peppers and onions were pre-cut in the convenience package, similarly as described by Wansink et al. (2013) and Marlette et al. (2005). Both these studies found that eating sliced forms of fruits and vegetables led to less food waste, in comparison with the uncut version of these products. Based on this literature, this study examined whether pre-sliced convenience meals led to less food waste in

comparison to regular food. In addition, it was found was that males waste significantly less than females. This could be explained by the fact that males consume more convenience food than females (Paeratakul et al., 2003; Mohr et al., 2007; Dave et al., 2009), which was

confirmed in this research as a larger percentage of males chose the convenience package.

(23)

non-convenient meal is chosen more often (Brunner et al, 2010). In this study, participants choose more convenience food in the ‘today’ condition compared to the ‘two days’ condition and more regular food in the ‘two days’ condition compared to the ‘today’ condition, but it was not a significant result. Therefore, this result does not support the previous empirical findings of Brunner et al. (2010) and Laran (2010). There could be several reasons for this. Firstly, the distance between the near future (today) and the distant future (two days) might have been too short. Secondly, the package could be seen as not convenient enough or not seen as convenient at all. Lastly, people did not prepare the meal on the day they were told to and therefore the manipulation failed.

Finally, it was expected was that the choice of convenience (vs. regular) food mediates the effect of temporal distance on food waste. As an effect of temporal distance on the choice of the type of food is necessary for a mediating effect – which was not found – this mediating effect could not be proven. When delving deeper into the effect of temporal distance, the statements about desirability and feasibility were included and an additional analysis on the feasibility and desirability per respondent was performed. This shows that people who

consider feasibility as more important, chose the convenience package more often and people who consider desirability as more important chose the regular package more often. However, the effect of temporal distance on the feasibility and desirability scores did not have a

significant effect on either of the measured variables, which resulted in no measurable mediation effect. Therefore, it cannot be concluded that the statements on the feasibility and desirability scores have an influence on the effect of temporal distance on food type. This could also be due to the fact that the distance between the near future (today) and the distant future (two days) was too short and therefore the statements made no difference.

(24)

6. MANAGERIAL AND PUBLIC POLICY IMPLICATIONS

From the results of this paper, it can be concluded that companies, retailers and consumers should be investing in convenience food. When food is minimally processed (convenience food) instead of unprocessed, the amount of food waste decreases. In the last decades, the amount of time people have to prepare a proper and healthy meal is decreasing. Convenience food can contribute to providing a proper and healthy meal despite the time constraints a consumer has. In this paper, convenience food is minimally processed food that is healthy, such as pre-sliced vegetables. Unhealthy food which only needs to be heated up (i.e. a frozen pizza) is excluded. Over the last years, people and organizations have become more aware of the negative consequences of food waste and it is expected that the behaviour of both

(25)

7. LIMITATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

In this chapter, the limitations that might have affected the validity of the results are

discussed. Firstly, the demographics of the total sample could have influenced the results. In general, this research focused on students; the sample mostly consists of students from the faculty of business and economics mostly. Moreover, there have been a noteworthy larger number of women (65.4%) participating in the research. Another characteristic that might have affected the results is the origin of the students: a large group is from Asia (28.1%). It could be that the products in the package are not the products that they normally purchase and consume. Consequently, cultural differences can lead to lower validity of the results. A more evenly distributed sample would be preferable for further research. In addition, for further research it is recommended that the sample of participants is more representative of the whole population instead of students only.

Secondly, it is known from the ‘Construal Level Theory’ that people make other choices in the near future in comparison to the more distant future (Liberman and Trope, 1998). It was expected was that in the near future people choose the convenience meal more often and the regular meal in the distant future. However, this hypothesis could not be proven. One reason for this result could be that the gap between the near future and the distant future was not large enough, so that no difference could be indicated. Future research should investigate how large the difference must be to prove this theory. Moreover, the mediation of the feasibility and desirability scores was tested to check whether temporal distance might affect this factor that has a significant effect on food type. This could not be proven for this factor, but future research might be able to identify which factors that influence food type and/or food waste are significantly affected by temporal distance. Another reason for the lack of significant results for temporal distance could be that the participants considered that package was not

convenient enough, or that the package did not appear to be at all as more convenient at all convenient. Despite the pre-sliced vegetables and the quick-cooking macaroni, it still needed to be cooked. This should be further examined in future research.

(26)

account in future research in order to achieve a more validated result and perhaps evidence that hypotheses 1 and 3 are true, as indicated in the literature.

Furthermore, future research could focus on how convenience meals can best be packed, whether it is possible to sell more convenience meals, and how the willingness to buy a convenience meal could be increased as it is currently lower than a regular meal.

(27)

REFERENCES

Aarseth, H., & Olsen, B., M. (2008). Food and masculinity in dual-career couples. Journal of

Gender Studies 17(4), 277–287.

Aschemann-Witzel, J., de Hooge, I., Amani, P., Bech-Larsen, T., & Oostindjer, M. (2015). Betz, A., Buchli, J., Göbel, C., & Müller, C. (2015). Food waste in the Swiss food service industry – Magnitude and potential for reduction. Waste Management 35, 218–226.

Booth, S., Smith, A., (2001). Food security and poverty in Australia – challenges for dietitians. Australia Journal of Nutrition and Dietetics 58(3), 150-156.

Byrne, P., O. Capps Jr., and A. Saha. (1998) Analysis of Quick-serve, Mid-scale, and Up-scale Food Away from Home Expenditures. The International Food and Agribusiness

Management Review 1, 51- 72.

Brook Lyndhurst. (2007). Food behaviour consumer research: Quantitative stage. UK:

WRAP.

Brunner, T. A., van der Horst, K., & Siegrist, M. (2010). Convenience food products. Drivers for consumption. Appetite 55(3), 498–506.

Buckley, M., Cowan, C., & McCarthy, M. (2007). The convenience food market in Great Britain: Convenience food lifestyle (CFL) segments. Appetite, 49(3), 600–617.

Buzby, J.C., Heyman, J. (2012). Total and per capita value of food loss in the United States.

Food policy 37, 561-570.

Caraher, M., and Lang, T. (1999). Can't cook, won't cook: A review of cooking skills and their relevance to health promotion. International Journal of Health Promotion and

Education, 37(3), 89-100.

Capps, O., Tedford, J. R., & Havlicek, J. (1983). Impact of household composition on convenience and non-convenience food expenditures in the South. Southern Journal of

(28)

Chapagain A, James K. (2011). The water and carbon footprint of household food and drink waste in the UK. WWF-UK, WRAP.

Cox J, Downing P. (2007). Food behaviour consumer research: Quantitative Phase. WRAP Banbury UK.

Dave, J.M., An, L.C., Jeffery, R.W. & Ahluwalia, J.S. (2009) Relationship of attitudes toward fast food and frequency of fast-food intake in adults. Obesity, 17, 1164–1170.

Drijfhout, Van Doorn, Van Ittersum. (2018). How to Influence Consumer Food Waste Behavior: Effects of Temporal Distance and Providing Nutritional Information on

Consumption Choices and Disposal Behavior. E-European Advances in Consumer Research

Volume, 11, 63-64.

Ekström, M. P., and E. L. Fürst. (2001). The Gendered Division of Cooking. Eating Pat-

terns: A Day in the Lives of Nordic People, edited by U. Kjærnes, 213–234.

Evans, D. (2012). Beyond the Throwaway Society: Ordinary Domestic Practice and a Sociological Approach to Household Food Waste. Sociology, 46(1), 41-56.

FAO. (1981). Food loss prevention in perishable crops. Agricultural Service Bulletin, 43. Rome, Italy.

FAO. (2009). Feeding the world, eradicating hunger. World Summit on Food Security, 16-18, Rome, Italy.

FAO, (2011). Global Food Losses and Food Waste: Extent, Causes and Prevention. Food and

Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy.

FAO. (2013) Food wastage footprints: impact on natural resources. Summary report, Rome, Italy.

(29)

Gourmelon, G. (2015). Global plastic production rises, recycling lags. Worldwatch Institute, 1-7.

Graham-Rowe, Ella, Jessop, Donna C and Sparks, Paul (2014). Identifying motivations and barriers to minimising household food waste. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 84, 15- 23.

Griffin, M., Sobal, J. and Lyson, T.A. (2009), An analysis of a community food waste stream”, Agriculture and Human Values, 26 (1), 67-81.

Gupta, N., & Jenkins, D. (1985). Stress, stressors, strains, and strategies. T. A. Beehr, & R. S.

Bhagat (Eds.), Human Stress and Cognition in Organisations: 141–176.

Gustavsson, J., Cederberg, C., Sonesson, U., van Otterdijk, R., Meybeck, A., (2011). Global Food Losses and Food Waste. FAO Report, 38–39.

Hamilton, R.W., Thompson, D.V. (2007). Is there a substitute for direct experience?

Comparing consumers preferences after direct and indirect product experiences. Journal of

Consumer Research, 34, 546-555.

Hayes, A. F. (2009). Beyond Baron and Kenny: Statistical Mediation Analysis in the New Millennium. Communication Monographs, 76(4), 408–420.

IGD. (1998). Food consumption ‘98: The one stop guide to the food consumer. IGD Business

Publications.

IPCC, (2013) Working Group 1 contribution to the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report. Climate change 2013: The physical science basis. Final draft underlying scientific technical

assessment.

Jackson, P., and Viehoff, V. (2016) Reframing convenience food. Appetite, 98, 1-11. Katajajuuri, J.-M., Silvennoinen, K., Hartikainen, H., Heikkilä, L., & Reinikainen, A.

(30)

Koivupuro, H.-K., Hartikainen, H., Silvennoinen, K., Katajajuuri, J.-M., Heikintalo, N., Reinikainen, A., & Jalkanen, L. (2012). Influence of socio-demographical, behavioural and attitudinal factors on the amount of avoidable food waste generated in Finnish households.

International Journal of Consumer Studies, 36(2), 183 191.

Koszewski, W., & Kuo, M. (1996). Factors that influence the food consumption behavior and nutritional adequacy of college women. Journal of the American Dietetic Association 96, 1286-1288.

Laran, J. (2010). Choosing Your Future: Temporal Distance and the Balance Between Self-Control and Indulgence, NA - Advances in Consumer Research Volume 37, 487-488.

Liberman, N., & Trope, Y. (1998). The Role of Feasibility and Desirability Considerations in Near and Distant Future Decisions: A Test of Temporal Construal Theory. Journal of

Personality And Social Psychology, 75(1), 5-18.

Lipinski, B., Hanson, C., Lomax, J., Kitinoja, L., Waite, R., Searchinger, T. 2013. Reducing food loss and waste. World Research Institute.

Lundqvist, J., C. de Fraiture and D. Molden. (2008). Saving Water: From Field to Fork – Curbing Losses and Wastage in the Food Chain. SIWI Policy Brief. SIWI.

Mallinson, L. J., Russell, J. M., & Barker, M. E. (2016). Attitudes and behaviour towards convenience food and food waste in the United Kingdom. Appetite, 103, 17–28.

Marlette, M. A., Templeton, S. B., & Panemangalore, M. (2005). Food Type, Food Preparation, and Competitive Food Purchases Impact School Lunch Plate Waste by Sixth-Grade Students. Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 105(11), 1779–1782. McKenzie, J. C. (1986). An integrated approach—With special reference to changing food habits in the UK. In C. Ritson, L. Gofton, & J. McKenzie (Eds.), The food consumer.

London: Wiley.

(31)

Monier, V., Escalon, V., O’Conner, C., (2009). EU DG ENV – preparatory study on Food Waste across EU 27. Final Report. Bio Intelligence Services.

Mintel, (2005). British Lifestyles, Mintel Group, London.

Olsen, N.V., Sijtsema, S.J., Hall, G. (2010). Predicting consumers intention to consume ready-to-eat meals. The role of moral attitude. Appetite, 55(3), 534-539.

Olsen, N. V., Menichelli, E., Sørheim, O., & Næs, T. (2012). Likelihood of buying healthy

convenience food: An at-home testing procedure for ready-to-heat meals. Food Quality and

Preference, 24(1), 171–178.

Paeratakul, S., Ferdinand, D.P., Champagne, C.M., Ryan, D.H. & Bray, G.A. (2003) Fast-food consumption among US adults and children: dietary and nutrient intake profile.

J. Am. Diet. Assoc. 103, 1332–1338.

Parfitt, J., Barthel, M., Macnaughton, S. (2010). Food waste within food supply chains: quantification and potential for change to 2050. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. London, B 365 (1554), 3065–3081.

Parizeau, K., von Massow, M., & Martin, R. (2015). Household-level dynamics of food waste production and related beliefs, attitudes, and behaviours in Guelph, Ontario. Waste

Management, 35, 207–217.

Porpino, G., Parente, J., & Wansink, B. (2015). Food waste paradox: antecedents of food disposal in low income households. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 39(6), 619–

629.

(32)

role of business model innovation for corporate sustainability. Int. J. Innovation and

Sustainable Development, 6 (2), 95-119.

Sheely, M. (2008). Global Adoption of Convenience Foods. American Journal of

Agricultural Economics 90(5), 1356-1365.

Silvennoinen, K., Katajajuuri, J.M., Hartikainen, H., Heikkilä, L., Reinikainen, A. (2014), Food waste volume and composition in Finnish households, British Food Journal, 116 (6), 1058 – 1068.

Stuart, T. (2009) Waste, uncovering the global food scandal. London, UK: Penguin.

Sullivan, O. (1997) ‘Time waits for no (wo)man: an investigation of the gendered experience of domestic time’, Sociology, 31(2), 221–39.

Thompson, C.J. (1996), “Caring consumers: gendered consumption meanings and the juggling lifestyle”, Journal of Consumer Research, 22, 388-407

Thönissen, R. (2009) Food waste: The Netherlands. Presentation to the EU Presidency Climate Smart Food Conf., Lund, Sweden.

Traill, B., & Harmsen, H. (1997). Pennine foods: Always prepared for a new ready meal. In B. Traill, & K. G. Grunert (Eds.), Product and process innovation in the food industry (pp. 187–199). UK: Chapman & Hall.

Traill, B. (1997). Structural changes in the European food industry: Consequences for innovation. B. Traill, & K. G. Grunert (Eds.), Product and process innovation in the food

industry, 38–60.

Trope, Y., Liberman, N., & Wakslak, C. (2010). Construal Levels and Psychological Distance: Effects on Representation, Prediction, Evaluation, and Behavior. Journal of

Consumer Psychology, 17(2), 83–95.

(33)

United Nations. 2013. World Population Prospects: The 2012 Revision. United Nations

Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division, New York, NY, USA.

Van der Horst, K., Brunner, T.A., Siegrist, M. 2010. Ready-meal consumption: associations with weight status and cooking skills. Public Health Nutrition, 14(2), 239–245.

Verriet, J. (2013). Ready meals and cultural values in the Netherlands, 1950–1970. Food &

History, 11(1), 123–153.

Wansink, B., Just, D. R., Hanks, A. S., & Smith, L. E. (2013). Pre-Sliced Fruit in School Cafeterias. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 44(5), 477–480.

Warde, A. (1999). Convenience food: Space and timing. British Food Journal, 107(7), 518– 527.

WRAP. (2007). Food Behaviour Consumer Research: Quantitative Phase. WRAP. (2010). Helping consumers convenience food waste – a retail survey.

(34)

(35)

(36)

(37)

(38)

(39)

(40)

(41)

(42)

APPENDIX C: SCORES ON FEASIBILITY ON FOOD TYPE

Package choice Feasibility score N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error 8 1 .00 - - 9 3 .33 .577 .333 10 10 .20 .422 .133 11 21 .10 .301 .066 12 14 .21 .426 .114 13 28 .25 .441 .083 14 18 .28 .461 .109 15 21 .52 .512 .112 16 26 .69 .471 .092 17 12 .50 .522 .151 18 13 .77 .439 .122 19 8 1.00 .000 .000 20 2 1.00 .000 .000 21 2 .50 .707 .500 Total 179 .42 .496 .037

Does choosing convenience food reduce waste?