Quantifying the functionality importance of plastic packaging in fresh produce from a needs/benefit perspective

Final report

April 18, 2024

Executive summary

The purpose of this project was to quantify what produce is currently packaged in plastic for the Canadian market, the purpose of the plastic packaging, and to identify limiting factors for selling fresh produce loose or in non-plastic packaging. The objective of the project was to provide the evidence-based knowledge required to enable informed commercial, policy and regulatory decisions. The study centred on the 40 types of fruits and vegetables that together represent 95% of total retail sales by volume (according to Nielsen data). Drawing direct comparisons between the functionality and comparative benefits of plastic versus alternative packaging material was beyond the scope of this project.

Evaluating realistic primary packaging and merchandizing options, particularly in a sector as dynamic as fresh produce,^{Footnote 1} is a complex task. A concise review of literature pertaining to fresh produce packaging and supply/value chain dynamics identified a straightforward matrix-based approach to methodically evaluate the suitability of a package and its associated functions in relation to the environments in which it has to perform its intended roles, from a whole of chain perspective. The use of matrixes to quantify and contrast the strength of relationship existing between two or more variables is a common process improvement technique.

The process of determining which functions to include in the matrix-based evaluation framework was aided by members of the research team possessing extensive academic expertise in food biology and packaging science. The team also possesses first-hand experience working in and analyzing the international fresh produce industry.

The primary research began by conducting retail store audits in the GTA, Ottawa and Montreal to capture a snapshot of the proportion of each of the 40 types of fruits and vegetables sold prepackaged in plastic packaging. Twenty-eight stores belonging to Loblaw, Sobeys, Metro, Walmart, and Costco were audited. The audits estimated the proportion of fresh produce sold prepackaged in plastic packaging, based on the shelf space dedicated to produce packaged in plastic versus an alternative material or sold loose. Compared to conventional banner stores, discount banners sell a higher proportion of fresh produce prepackaged in plastic (43% versus 48%, respectively).

Across the 40 types, 48% of all fresh produce sales was identified as sold prepackaged in plastic (18.6% and 29.6% of fruits and vegetables, respectively). With fruits and vegetables accounting for similar overall market share (48% versus 47%, respectively), the volume of fruit purchased prepackaged in plastic is measurably less than the total volume of vegetables purchased prepackaged in plastic. To aid the evaluation of packaging functions, each of the fruits and vegetables were grouped according to their characteristics; for example, the ability to withstand a certain level of physical handling along the value chain, or at the point of purchase in the store without resulting in significant bruising or an immediate degradation in quality. Eight distinct groups resulted from industry experts’ input.

To quantify the importance of distinct functions associated with plastic packaging identified during the literature review, a discussion guide was prepared ahead of confidential consultations conducted with strategically targeted individuals from the production, packer, distribution, and retail sectors of the fresh produce industry. The discussion guide asked respondents to weigh, on a scale of 3 to 9 (3 = low, 6 = medium, 9 = high), the importance of each of the functions that plastic packaging can play for enabling the effective and efficient distribution of semi-hardy fruits and vegetables from field through to consumers. To enable the later modification of the matrix in relation to each of the eight categories of fruits and vegetables, the consultations typically centered on a specific moderately hardy type of fruit and vegetable.

The criticality of each function associated with primary plastic packaging’s role in enabling efficient and effective operations along the value chain, maximizing shelf life and minimizing food safety risks was then identified. This was achieved by asking respondents to identify where a strong relationship existed between each function and a value chain activity. The strength of each association was then ranked using the same 3, 6 or 9 based score. Eight separate evaluation matrixes (one for each category of fruits and vegetables) were populated through a series of iterative consultations with experts possessing decades of experience in the fresh produce industry.

A number of observations and conclusions were drawn from the eight matrixes. They include:

• The importance of distinct functions performed by primary plastic packaging across the entire supply chain to enable the execution of efficient and effective operations. In all situations and with all types of fruits and vegetables, the greatest impact that primary plastic packaging has on operations is during the initial packaging of fresh produce, and subsequently at the retail store.
• The less robust and more perishable an item, due to either its physical and/or its biological characteristics, the more important functions relating to the protection of that product from production through to their consumption become.

For comparatively more robust fruits and vegetables, the overall value of primary plastic packaging largely centers around the efficiency of stores’ operations and consumers’ buying experience (these functions being “portion control” and “ease of handling”). Compared to other functions, the value derived from these functions remains comparatively similar across all of the eight types of produce.

A much different picture emerged in relation to product protection functions. A direct correlation exists between the importance of packaging functions related to product protection and products’ perishability. The increased importance of these packaging functions extends across the value chain.

Presented in the form of scenarios, the report concludes by determining opportunities to reduce the percentage of fresh fruits and vegetables sold prepackaged in plastic, without such leading to unintended consequences that are potentially greater than the benefits gained. Two scenarios are presented. The less aggressive scenario would result in 36% of the 40 fruits and vegetables researched being sold prepackaged in plastic. The more aggressive scenario would result in 25% of the fruits and vegetables researched being sold prepackaged in plastic. Both scenarios are achievable, subject to realistic timeframes and the execution of carefully measured changes. These scenarios do not account for emerging packaging innovations, and they assume status quo regarding global supply chains and year-round availability of fresh produce that could otherwise be offered only seasonally in Canada.

Table of contents

1. Introduction

Packaging plays a crucial role in enabling the Canadian fresh produce industry to operate effectively and efficiently. It protects products throughout the value/supply chain and enables the efficient operation of transport, logistics and distribution. It reduces food loss and waste (FLW) by extending shelf life and protecting fruits and vegetables from physical damage or abuse — along the value chain and at the point of purchase. It enhances food safety by mitigating environmental circumstances that would lead to microbial growth and/or contamination by foreign materials. It provides a mechanism for improving dietary health by providing highly nutritional foods in convenient ready-to-eat formats year-round and nutritional/preparation advice that can be written on packs. All of these factors are vital, given that Canada imports approximately three-quarters of the fresh produce consumed, and the thousands of kilometres over which much of this produce travels prior to its importation.

Three forms of packaging exist: primary, secondary and tertiary. Primary packaging, the packaging that is in direct contact with food and consumers take home, is the focus of this study. Secondary and tertiary packaging predominantly play a logistical role in enabling fresh produce to be distributed from the place of production/processing to the point of purchase by consumers. Examples of secondary packaging utilized in the produce industry include cardboard cartons containing fruit that is sold loose or in prepackaged format, and returnable plastic containers containing loose or prepacked vegetables. Tertiary packaging used by the produce industry includes skids, corner boards, wrapping, and strapping. These are manufactured from wood, plastic, cardboard, or other materials.

2. Purpose and objectives

The dynamic nature of the fresh produce sector (for example, the extent to which products differ in their respiration rates and overall perishability, combined with increasing consumer demand for convenient value-added meal solutions) has led to a variety of plastic materials and packaging solutions.

This variety of materials and packaging solutions has hampered efforts to create sustainable circular packaging economies. The challenge facing the fresh produce industry and government is how to reduce the volume of plastic packaging utilized by the fresh produce industry, and its environmental impacts, without its withdrawal leading to potentially widespread negative consequences for consumers and industry stakeholders.

The purpose of this project was to quantify what produce is currently packaged in plastic for the Canadian market, the purpose of the plastic packaging, and to identify limiting factors for selling produce loose or in non-plastic packaging. The objective of the project is to provide the evidence-based knowledge required to inform commercial, policy and regulatory decisions to address plastic packaging waste and pollution.

3. Research methodology

Literature review

Evaluating realistic primary packaging and merchandizing options, particularly in a sector as dynamic and varied as fresh produce, is a complex task. The research therefore began by conducting a concise literature review to assist the VCMI team to design a matrix used for evaluating the comparative importance of plastic packaging in relation to distinct types of fresh produce. The evaluation criteria had to be sufficiently tangible to enable the chosen functions’ distinct importance for ensuring the safe, effective and efficient distribution of fresh produce over long distances to be scored objectively. Examples of publications reviewed to determine functions contained in the evaluation framework and conclusions drawn from the study’s findings are listed as footnotes. The suite of literature reviewed is contained in the Bibliography.

Given that numerous food scientists and packaging experts^{Footnote 2} have stated that much (often the majority) of packaging’s role in enabling the safe, effective and efficient distribution of food to market is performed prior to products reaching a retail store and consumers purchasing that product, the evaluation had to encompass a whole of chain perspective.^{Footnote 3}

The evaluation also needed to explicitly separate cause from effect. What causes packaging to play its intended role is the effectiveness of the intended functions that it performs.^{Footnote 4} An example of this is a function that preserves the nutritional and physical quality of a fruit or vegetable, including maintaining texture (by, for example, preventing moisture loss), and preventing discolouration and decline in taste profile (by, for example, slowing the ripening process or preventing light-induced greening). The effect of the preservation function performed by packaging includes extended shelf life and reduced FLW. Both effects positively impact economic efficiencies along the value chain.

A function performed by plastic packaging to control microbes is particularly important in fresh produce that is consumed raw. This risk extends beyond mixed salads or coleslaw mixes, etc. It is also an important function in seemingly more robust low acidic produce, such as whole fruits and vegetables.^{Footnote 5} Any damage caused to products by natural occurrences (for example, weather and insect bites) or mechanical factors (for example, rough handling, peeling, cutting) during primary production, harvesting, packing, and distribution creates minute factures to plants’ protective skin, to which micro-organisms can adhere and subsequently be transferred into the internal tissue of fruits and vegetables. This can result in food safety risks that can cause mild to severe sickness among consumers.^{Footnote 6}

Presented below is a proven approach for 1) evaluating packaging in relation to the environments in which it has to perform its intended roles, and which transcend a food value chain from production to consumer; and 2) categorizing the distinct functions that enable packaging to fulfil these intended roles.^{Footnote 7} In so doing, the matrix provides “a methodical yet simple way of evaluating the suitability of a particular package design” (Robertson, 2013:5) in relation to distinct products and situations. The matrix can also be used to evaluate the impact of legal or regulatory changes on packaging functions.

Table 3-1: Functions/environments grid for evaluating package performance

		Environments
		Physical	Ambient	Human
Functions	Containment
	Protection
	Convenience
	Communication

The explicit functions that were chosen for inclusion in the evaluation framework were sourced from scientific food and packaging literature and presented in Table 3-7 (page 13) of the report and summarized in Appendix A. To ensure that the chosen functions were robust and defendable, the reviewed literature pertained to foods generally, not solely fresh produce. This is because the factors associated with mitigating potential food safety and quality risks (for example, the packaging functions associated with microbial control to extend shelf life) relate to a wide variety of foods.

The process of determining which functions to include in the framework was aided by members of VCMI’s research team possessing extensive academic expertise in food biology and packaging science. The team also possesses first-hand experience working in and analyzing the international fresh produce industry.

Data review

Nielsen retail sales data was analyzed to determine the distinct types of fresh fruits and vegetables on which the study should focus, to ensure research conclusions could be inferred across the overall Canadian produce industry. The analysis found that 40 types of fruits and vegetables (presented in the next two tables) represent 95% of total annual retail sales of fresh fruits and vegetables. The 40 items are listed in order of their comparative overall annual sales for fruits (Table 3-2) then vegetables (Table 3-3), respectively. Given that Costco is the only major Canadian retailer whose sales are not contained in Nielsen data, the data is a robust representation of produce sales in Canada. The robustness of this approach was confirmed by triangulating Nielsen data against Statistics Canada’s Food Availability data for these 40 fruits and vegetables as a proportion of total fresh produce.

Primary research

3.1.1 Retail audits

The primary research began by conducting retail store audits in the GTA, Ottawa and Montreal to capture a snapshot of the proportion of each of the 40 types of fruits and vegetables sold prepackaged in plastic packaging. A total of 28 stores belonging to Loblaw, Sobeys, Metro, Walmart and Costco were audited between December 2023 and February 2024. The findings from individual stores were weighted based on produce market share.^{Footnote 8} The purpose of the audits was to estimate the proportion of fresh produce sold prepackaged in plastic packaging, based on the shelf space dedicated to produce packaged in plastic versus an alternative material or sold loose. The material from which the plastic packaging was derived (for example, petroleum versus starch) did not factor into the analysis.

For reasons that include the fact that the proportion of distinct types of fresh produce sold prepackaged in plastic or another packaging material is affected by seasonal factors (for example, the need for packaging to extend the shelf life and availability of imported sweetcorn versus domestic sweetcorn sold loose), the findings should be considered directional, not definitive. As well, a direct correlation does not necessarily exist between the shelf space or size of display accorded to an item and sales velocity. In addition, the merchandizing mechanics (incl. sales of packaged versus loose, and the type of packaging used) will differ between store banners (for example, discount versus conventional), and be determined by a host of supply and demand related factors (including the location where it’s grown and seasonal changes in consumer buying patterns).

Presented below in Tables 3-2 and 3-3 is the store audit results, along with the proportion of each distinct type of fruit or vegetable and the proportion of total fresh produce retail sales that this represents. Across the 40 items, 48% of fresh produce was identified as prepackaged in plastic (18.6% and 29.6% of fruits and vegetables, respectively). With fruits and vegetables accounting for similar overall market share (48% versus 47%, respectively), the volume of fruit purchased prepacked in plastic is measurably less than the total volume of vegetables purchased prepacked in plastic.

This estimate of 48% of total fresh produce sales being sold prepacked in plastic aligns closely with VCMI’s 2023 estimate that 45% of fresh produce is sold prepacked in plastic.^{Footnote 9} This estimate, produced for the Canadian Produce Marketing association, was derived from Statistics Canada food availability data and consultations with businesses supplying or operating within the Canadian produce industry.

A subsequent analysis was completed to identify differences in the proportion of fresh produce sold prepackaged in plastic by discount versus convention retail banners. Canadian Grocer retail market share estimates adjusted to account for fresh produce specific market share was used to assess whether differences existed in the proportion of fresh produce sold prepackaged in plastic by discount banner grocery stores (for example, No Frills, Freshco, Maxi) versus conventional grocery stores (for example, Sobeys, Metro, Provigo). As presented below in Table 3-4, the analysis identified that discount stores sell a higher proportion of fresh produce packaged in plastic than conventional stores (48% versus 43%, respectively).

This finding is not surprising given known differences in discount versus conventional stores’ supply chain and retail operating models that enable increased efficiencies and lower costs/prices. A smaller range of products is typically offered by discount than by conventional stores. As well, the fresh produce sold in discount stores can also be of lower quality and have a shorter shelf life than that sold in conventional stores. As described in the reviewed literature and identified in prior VCMI research, these factors are among those which influence vendors’ and retailers’ packaging decisions.^{Footnote 10}

3.1.2 Categorizing fresh produce

The role played by packaging, and the importance of a distinct role for enabling the safe, effective and efficient distribution of fresh produce from farm or greenhouse to consumer, can differ quite markedly across different types of fresh fruits and vegetables.

To maintain physical and nutritional qualities, the same packaging may need to perform identical or different roles at distinct points along the value chain — just two reasons for this being respiration and transpiration rate. Distinct fruits and vegetables can differ markedly in their natural respiration and transpiration rates. The rate of those natural processes occurring is impacted by multiple factors, including environmental sensitivities (for example, exposure to ethylene), transportation mode and time/ distance, fluctuations in internal or external temperature, and post-harvest value-adding activities.^{Footnote 11}

The importance of primary plastic packaging in relation to each of these same 40 types of fruits and vegetables was arrived at by grouping the 40 items into eight categories, each of which reflected each item’s comparative physical and biological robustness/perishability. The fruits and vegetables listed within each group therefore share similar characteristics; for example: 1) their ability to withstand a certain level of physical handling along the value chain or at the point of purchase in the store without resulting in significant bruising or an immediate degradation in quality, and 2) the potential for microbial or other pathogen related factors to give rise to food safety concerns.

The final categorization of fruits and vegetables followed a reiterative process, guided by industry and packaging experts during the consultation process that is described more fully in the next section. How fruits and vegetables were categorized in terms of their physical and biological robustness versus perishability is presented below in Tables 3-5 and 3-6. As stated previously and cited in the literature, because fruits’ and vegetables’ comparative robustness or perishability is affected by multiple factors occurring along the entire value chain from production to consumer, and these factors are not static, this categorization should not be considered definitive.

A direct correlation cannot be said to exist between a fruit or vegetable’s physical or biological perishability and the importance of packaging per se from logistical and socio-economic perspectives. Based on the scientific literature, a correlation does typically exist between the perishability of certain types of fresh produce and the importance of distinct functions performed by plastic packaging.

3.1.3 Functional importance

To quantify the importance of distinct functions associated with plastic packaging identified during the review of packaging research literature, a discussion guide was prepared ahead of 19 iterative and confidential consultations conducted with strategically targeted individuals from the production, packer, distribution, and retail sectors of the fresh produce industry. All of the individuals possessed at least two decades’ experience handling a wide variety of fresh fruits and vegetables. A number of the individuals possessed both scientific quality assurance and operational expertise. The guide referred to during the first iteration of stakeholder discussions is presented in Appendix B.

The discussion guide asked respondents to weigh on a scale of 3 to 9 (3 = low, 6 = medium, 9 = high) the importance of each of the functions that plastic packaging can play for enabling the effective and efficient distribution of semi-hardy fruits and vegetables from field through to consumers. The importance of each function was reviewed separately for fruits and vegetables. To enable the later modification of the matrix in relation to each of the eight categories of fruits and vegetables, the consultations typically centered on a specific moderately-hardy type of fruit and vegetable.

Respondents were then presented with an association matrix designed to enable an evaluation of the importance of any of the functions played by plastic packaging, for assisting the effective and efficient distribution of fruits and vegetables from production through to consumer. As shown below in Table 3-7, listed down the left-hand side of the matrix were distinct activities that occur along the value chain, and the stakeholder typically associated with each of the activities listed (for example wholesaler, retailer). Listed along the top of the matrix are each of the functions derived from the literature review.

Table 3-7: Evaluation framework

Respondents were asked to identify where they believed a particular function associated with primary plastic packaging is critically important to enabling one or more of the activities listed in the “Category” column to be performed effectively and efficiently. The subsequent analysis of responses saw weights applied to those cells where respondents had identified that a strong relationship existed between a particular function performed by primary plastic packaging and an activity occurring along the value chain.

Analysis of responses

The analysis of responses and population of the evaluation matrixes presented in the following section followed a reiterative process that began once a number of initial discussions had been held with produce industry experts. Three iterations of the matrix were subsequently presented to individuals who had participated in the initial consultations, along with individuals who had not previously seen the matrix. The purpose of this process was to help ensure that the final matrixes and conclusions drawn were robust and defensible.

The matrixes presented in the following section resulted from having modified the initial weightings for fruits and vegetables to account for less and more perishable fresh produce. These final matrixes were also validated by industry experts.

4. 4 Matrixes associated with fresh produce categorization

The following section presents eight separate evaluation matrixes. Each matrix reflects the importance of distinct functions associated with plastic packaging in relation to a categorized group of fruits and vegetables, as presented in Tables 3-5 and 3-6. The use of matrixes to quantify and contrast the strength of relationship existing between two or more variables is a common process improvement technique.^{Footnote 12}

The association matrix was completed by having respondents weight the importance of each function associated with the primary packaging for modestly perishable fruits and vegetables. As described previously, three iterations of this process occurred. The final iteration saw them weight each function in relation to a specific fruit and vegetable. The importance of each function was rated on a scale of 3 to 9 (3 = low, 6 = medium, 9 = high). Respondents were asked not to base their answers on whether the chosen fruit and vegetable was imported or had been grown domestically. The reasons for this included: 1) the majority of fresh produce consumed in Canada is imported, 2) the source of those imports (along with distance travelling and mode of transportation) varies significantly during the year, and 3) domestically grown produce is often transported for long distances.

The importance of any of the functions played by primary plastic packaging, for enabling the effective and efficient distribution of fruits and vegetables from production through to consumer, may relate to one or more of the activities that occur along the value chain. Listed down the left-hand side of each matrix are distinct activities that occur along the value chain, and the stakeholder typically associated with each of the activities listed (for example. wholesaler, retailer). Listed along the top of the matrix are each of the functions presented in Section 3.

The criticality of each function associated with primary plastic packaging’s role in enabling efficient and effective operations along the value chain, maximizing shelf life and minimizing food safety risks were then identified. This was achieved by asking respondents to identify where a strong relationship existed between each function and a value chain activity. The strength of each association was then ranked using the same 3, 6 or 9 based score. Where a score has not been entered into a cell reflects respondents’ views that a strong relationship does not typically exist between a distinct function played by primary plastic packaging and a particular point in the value chain.

Each function’s importance from a whole of chain perspective is presented as a sum of each process association score and multiplied by its criticality score, and is listed at the bottom of each column. The three most important functions associated with primary plastic packaging for each group of fruits and vegetables are highlighted.

At the end of each row, the summative outcome of having multiplied the strength of association between function and point in chain is also shown. This sum score represents the comparative importance of the overall functions performed by primary plastic packaging in relation to distinct points along the value chain from primary production to consumption. The three points in the chain where primary plastic packaging has the greatest importance for enabling the safe, efficient and effective distribution of fruits and vegetables are highlighted.

Specific matrixes by fruit and vegetable type

The first series of matrixes presented is for fruit (Tables 4-1 to 4-4). The second series of matrixes is for vegetables (Tables 4-5 to 4-8). The list of fruits or vegetables associated with each matrix is listed. The matrixes are followed by a brief summary of observations and conclusions that flow from the information presented.

Observations

A number of immediate observations can be drawn from the matrixes. The two most important and overarching conclusions are the following:

1. The importance of distinct functions performed by primary plastic packaging across the entire value chain to enable the execution of efficient and effective operations for certain fruits and vegetables. The point in the supply chain where primary plastic packaging plays the greatest role is during the initial packaging of fresh produce, and subsequently at the retail store.
2. The less robust and more perishable an item, due to either its physical and/or its biological characteristics, the more important functions relating to the protection of that product from production through to their consumption become

Another observation is that in comparatively more robust fruits and vegetables, the overall value of primary plastic packaging centers more around the efficiency of stores’ operations and consumers’ buying experience (these functions being “portion control” and “ease of handling”). Compared to other functions, the value derived from these functions remains comparatively similar across all forms of produce. Dependent on target markets and consumers’ perceptions of value, more robust produce items are candidates for selling in alternative packaging materials, and potentially loose instead of packaged.^{Footnote 13}

For reasons expressed by a respondent possessing decades of experience in quality assurance and value chain operations, even for hardier fresh produce items, transitioning to loose instead of packaged requires careful consideration and planning: “The pre-sorting and the packaging of smaller sized product (as occurs in apples) greatly reduces shrink. This is because consumers will not go through the display to find the size that they want. It also enables produce to be merchandized from a consumer value-proposition perspective.” In so doing, industry is able to capture value through the communication of marketing messages and adopting distinct merchandizing mechanics, including differentiating products by size or other attributes. The greatest benefit offered by primary plastic packaging is in the form of efficiencies for packers, retailers and consumers.

With respect to communication relating to traceability and other identification processes (including the use of PLU (price look-up) and bar codes for streamlining stock management processes and consumers’ purchasing experience), different benefits emerge from along the value chain. In the words of a respondent who possesses decades of experience performing multiple roles across the fresh produce value chian: “Consumers benefit from usage and storage information, retailers primarily from handling information, and packers from the marketing messages and branding opportunities. However, everyone along the supply chain benefits from the traceability aspects of packaging.”

Of the functions related to product protection, a direct correlation exists between preservation and a product’s perishability. The increased importance of this function extends across the entire value chain. This is not surprising, given the enormous distances, and often highly variable environments, that fresh produce has to navigate as it moves along the value chain from the point of production through to consumption in Canada. As highlighted by a Canadian grower/packer/shipper of reasonably perishable produce, the importance of preservation related functions applies to both domestically grown and imported fresh produce, but the need for plastic packaging is also influenced by supply chains’ length and complexity. “If the product is going direct to retail, we can pack in cardboard. If the product is not going direct to retail, we must pack in plastic; otherwise we get killed (due to a subsequent and rapid deterioration in quality).”

5. Viable opportunities to reduce plastic packaging

Challenges and opportunities

Presented in the form of scenarios, the following section describes opportunities to reduce the percentage of fresh fruits and vegetables sold prepackaged in plastic without such a change leading to undesirable consequences. Undesirable consequences of suboptimal packaging, based on current global supply chain practices and currently available packaging technology, identified during the literature review could include:

1. Reduced shelf life and increased product damage;
2. Decreased supply chain efficiencies, that is increased labour, less effective and efficient transport;
3. Impacts on product availability and value-added options; and
4. Less microbial control and increased external contamination, particularly for cut and pre-prepared fruits and vegetables.

As noted by a number of respondents, another potential undesirable consequence of transitioning from current packaging and merchandizing arrangements are outcomes associated with consumer resistance to altering their purchasing behavior. For example, when transparent plastic is replaced with opaque paper, industry has found that many consumers react in one of two ways. Consumers may cease buying a product or, alternatively, they open a package to examine the contents before purchasing an unopened package. Both outcomes negatively impact industry economics.

The selling of previously packaged produce loose often leads to increased loss in store, due to damage caused by consumers sifting through the display to pick out the best quality. It also slows down the sales process, because consumers take longer to select the produce that they choose to purchase, potentially leading to some consumers deciding not to purchase that item at all. At the same time, loose produce offers customers the opportunity to buy only what they need, rather than pre-packaged quantifies. This can benefit small or single-person households by reducing costs and food waste.

That said, as exhibited by the changes that are already occurring in the fresh produce industry^{Footnote 14} (such as a transition from packaging onions and apples in plastic netting or bags in favour of cardboard trays or cartons), opportunities undoubtedly exist to reduce the use of plastic packaging and/or replace plastic with alternative materials.

Modelled scenarios

Two scenarios are presented for fruits and vegetables (see Tables 5-2 and 5-3). Based on findings resulting from the secondary and primary research, changes in the percentage of each produce sold in primary plastic packaging reflect each item’s comparative robustness/perishability. This was achieved by applying notional changes in the proportion of each categorized group of fruits and vegetables sold prepackaged in plastic. As in Section 3.3, the items are listed in order of total fresh produce retail sales.

Each of the four types of fruits and vegetables, and the proportions subsequently modelled in scenarios, are presented below in Table 5-1. The actual changes made to distinct products would likely differ within each group. In group #2, for example, instead of the stated overall reduction, a larger reduction could be achieved in onions, while a smaller reduction could occur in kiwis. Expected differences will also occur within a distinct type of produce. For example, field cucumbers are less susceptible to dehydration and external damage than greenhouse-grown English cucumbers. Therefore, differences will occur in the degree to which packaging can viably be removed from field-grown versus greenhouse-grown English cucumbers.

As can be seen in the above table, given the critical importance of plastic to maintaining the safe, efficient and effective distribution of the most highly perishable category of fruits and vegetables (bagged salads, berries, etc.), no changes are proposed for group #4 in either scenario.

Changes in share of produce sold prepackaged in plastic

Table 5-4 shows how the percentage of fruits, vegetables and overall fresh produce sold prepackaged in plastic would change if the above scenarios were executed as described. Compared to the current situation, the less aggressive scenario would result in a 25 percentage reduction in the total volume of fruits and vegetables sold prepackaged in plastic. The more aggressive scenario would result in a 48 percentage reduction in the total sales volume of fruits and vegetables sold prepackaged in plastic.

The proposed changes would result in 64 and 75%, respectively, of the 40 categories of fresh produce researched not being sold prepackaged in plastic. As previously described, these 40 categories of fruits and vegetables represent 95% of Canadian fresh produce retail sales. Given the industry and consumer related challenges (such as those described in Section 5.1) that will impact the viability of attempts to move away from current packaging arrangements, Scenario 1 could be adopted as a short- to medium-term (3 to 5 years) target. Scenario 2 could be adopted as a medium- to longer-term target (5 to 10 years). This would help ensure that a significant reduction in the proportion in fresh produce sold prepackaged in plastic was achieved, without those changes leading to potentially significant unintended consequences for industry and consumers.

6. Conclusions

The research concluded that opportunities exist to halve the proportion of fruits and vegetables sold in Canadian retail stores prepackaged in plastic, without this change risking the occurrence of unintended consequences that would outweigh the potential benefits. As described in the reviewed literature and reflected in the research findings, the most readily available opportunities to reduce the incidence of plastic packaging is in more robust types of fresh produce. These are where plastic packaging is more likely to have been adopted for primarily cost or efficiency reasons, versus functions that only plastic packaging can currently perform — namely those that are protection related. The current situation will evolve as packaging innovations emerge and are scaled-up in response to industry’s ongoing investment in the creation of innovative packaging solutions.

Examples of opportunities identified in the literature reviewed or proposed by respondents, include: 1) transitioning away from selling hardier produce (such as smaller apples and onions) in plastic netting and bags, and moving towards cardboard trays and perforated paper overlays; and 2) selling larger apples and onions in loose format. Apples and onions are examples of fresh produce items that are sufficiently hardy and non-perishable to not necessarily require selling prepackaged in plastic packaging for reasons relating to food safety and food waste prevention. This type of transition is already occurring and is a viable opportunity that the wider produce industry could embrace, subject to the acceptance of such changes in the target market and the creation of sustainable business models. As identified in the literature, the creation of new business models may require investments to address reduced efficiencies from the status quo and/or to enable industry to transition capital equipment or infrastructure to that associated with different packaging and systems.

Due to wider challenges identified during the research, such as consumers’ resistance to change and the potential for changes in packaging formats leading to reduced year-round availability, the suggested transition from the current state of 48% of total produce being sold prepackaged in plastic to the suggested aim of 25% of fresh produce being sold prepackaged in plastic would need to be purposeful and measured. Transitioning to different packaging materials, or the sale of loose instead of prepackaged, must be piloted prior to proceeding with any widespread sweeping change. Pilot initiatives should include control points along the chain, measuring outcomes in relation to performance targets, and reflect objective whole of chain perspectives.

7. Appendix A: Functional definitions

Listed below are the definitions of functions associated with plastic packaging. These definitions were shared with industry representatives during the process of evaluating the comparative importance of each function in relation to distinct types of fresh fruits and vegetables.

Seal integrity

Seal integrity ensures prevention of leakage — typically of internal properties (for example, gases, humidity or liquid) — into the surrounding physical, ambient and human environments. Leakage of gases inhibits creation of modified atmosphere, which extends shelf life by slowing product respiration rate and/or limiting the occurence of mould, etc. Leakage of internal gases also affects transpiration rates and the heat created internally by natural biological processes that occur post harvest. Seal integrity also prevents the purposeful adulteration of food.

Physical robustness

Physical robustness ensures optimum allocation of resources — both hard (for example, infrastructure, refrigerators, trucks, etc.) and soft (for example, labour, energy, etc.).

Portion control

Enhances the efficiency of retail store operations by enabling units of produce to be sold at a time, thereby improving the utilization of labour and the speed of purchase then checkout/payment by consumers. Prevents the occurance of avoidable food waste by, for example, 1) controlling the amount of food that is purchased by a customer, and 2) lessening the amount of food that is exposed to the natural environment after the package has been opened. Portion control also provides consumers with the opportunity to complete their shopping trip efficiently, by having the option to purchase a unit of produce at a time (rather than having to handle individual items).

Ease of handling

Facilitates resource optimization along the chain by providing the ability to efficiently pack, transport, stack, store, open, display, etc. It also increases the efficiency with which consumers can choose, purchase, carry/transport, then store/prepare produce in the home.

Storage/handling instructions

Ensures participants along the value chain and consumers in the home are informed about the most effective and efficient means to handle, transport and store food — thereby ensuring the execution of appropriate food safety practices.

Traceability/tracking/ID

Includes date coding, batch numbering, etc. The documenting and linking of timelines of production, processing, distribution, and storage practices help guarantee the quality and safety of food purchased and consumed. It also assists industry and governments to efficiently and effectively pinpoint the source of any quality or health related problem, and quickly remove affected products from the market, reducing the risk of foodborne illnesses.

Process control

Packaging mechanics enable the execution of more effective management processes and decision making than otherwise possible along the value chain and in the home. This is achieved, for example, by the packaging being transparent.

Preservation

Preservation of nutritional and physical qualities, including maintaining texture (due to moisture loss), and preventing discolouration and decline in taste profile (for example, due to ripening or light induced greening).

Prevent damage to contents

Shields food from accidental mechanical damage during handling, transportation and storage by providing a protective layer between the food and external environment. It also shields food from purposeful damage or fraud through intentional tampering or adulteration, thereby ensuring that food remains secure and uncontaminated throughout the value chain.

Microbial control

Prevents microbes from occuring and/or multiplying to levels that pose a danger to consumers or results in foods’ premature degradation. An example is active antimicrobial packaging or contents, which act by releasing compounds that suppress specific microorganisms, and improves food quality and safety during long-term storage, resulting in extended shelf life.

Prevent internal contamination

Prevents contents from being contaminated by external sources, whether environmental or human. In so doing, keeps harmful agents like bacteria and viruses away from food by preventing contamination during handling, transportation, and storage.

Prevent external contamination

Prevents harm to surrounding environment, including other products, water, air, etc., due to contents leaking. In so doing, it diminishes the ecological footprint of the food throughout its life-cycle — thereby assisting all businesses operating along the value chain and consumers to reduce their environmental impact.

8. Appendix B: Interview guide

Quantifying the importance of primary plastic packaging for fresh produce

Focused on fresh produce purchased by consumers in retail stores, the purpose of this project is to validate opportunities to reduce or replace primary plastic packaging without risking the creation of unintended consequences that outweigh the environmental benefits achieved. Primary packaging is that which is in contact with the product and consumers take home.

An assessment of opportunities to reduce the use of primary plastic in the fresh produce industry will be achieved by 1) evaluating the incidence of primary plastic packaging in fresh fruits and vegetables sold in Canadian retail stores, and 2) quantifying the comparative importance of primary plastic packaging in discrete fruits and vegetables.

The evidence-based knowledge required to complete this project is being sourced from a review of scientific packaging studies, the analysis of private and publicly-sourced data pertaining to fresh produce retail sales, packaging audits, and consulting with produce and packaging industry experts.

As a respected produce industry expert, we would greatly appreciate your perspectives. Your participation in this study will help ensure that conclusions reached through the analysis of research data are viewed in the context of the Canadian fruit and vegetable industry.

All of the information that you provide will be treated with the strictest confidentiality. We are not seeking the names of people, businesses or organizations. Only the VCMI team will see individual responses and granular research data, both of which will be destroyed at the project’s conclusion. If you have questions about the study, please contact Martin Gooch at martin@vcm-international.com.

We thank you in advance for your cooperation.

Regards,

Martin Gooch, PhD

1. Categorizing fruits and vegetables

To assist in determining the comparative importance of primary plastic packaging for discrete types of produce, we have grouped the 40 fruits and vegetables that account for ~95% of total retail sales into three distinct categories: “Hardy,” “Semi-Hardy” and “Perishable.” Each of the groups (shown below) reflect physical and biological related factors that affect each of these fruits’ and vegetables’ comparative hardiness/perishability from a whole of chain perspective.

Are there any fruits and vegetables that you would categorize differently? If yes, please describe why.

Categorizing fruits

Categorizing vegetables

Comments:

---

---

2. Packaging functions

Packaging performs different functions. Together, these functions cumulatively determine packaging’s value to industry and/or consumers by, for example, extending shelf life and availability. As presented below, for the purposes of this project we have grouped functions into those associated with containment, convenience, communication, and protection of fruits and vegetables. We have then identified specific functions that plastic packaging can play for enabling the effective and efficient distribution of fruits and vegetables from field through to consumers.

1. In relation to semi-hardy fruits, on a scale of 3-9 (3 = low; 6 = medium; 9 = high) please state:

1. How critical each of the grouped functions listed in column i are to enabling the effective and efficient distribution of fruits generally (for example containment)
2. How critical you believe each of the discrete functions listed in column ii are for enabling the effective and efficient distribution of fruits generally (for example preservation^{Footnote 15})

Comments:

---

---

2. In relation to semi-hardy vegetables, on a scale of 3-9 (3 = low; 6 = medium; 9 = high) please state:

1. How critical each of the grouped functions listed in column i are to enabling the effective and efficient distribution of vegetables generally (for example containment)
2. How critical you believe each of the discrete functions listed in column ii are for enabling the effective and efficient distribution of vegetables generally (for example process control^{Footnote 16})

Comments:

---

---

3. Association Matrix

The importance of any of the functions played by plastic packaging, for enabling the effective and efficient distribution of fruits and vegetables from production through to consumer, may relate to one or more of the activities that occur along the value chain.

Presented below are two matrixes that build upon the questions that we previously asked. The first matrix is for fruit. The second matrix is for vegetables. Listed down the left-hand side of each matrix are distinct activities that occur along the value chain, and the stakeholder typically associated with each of the activities listed (for example, wholesaler, retailer). Listed along the top of the matrix are each of the functions presented in Section 2.

Fruit

In relation to semi-hardy fruits, please identify where you believe a particular function associated with primary plastic packaging is critically important to enabling one or more of the activities listed in the left-hand column to be performed effectively and efficiently.

Comments:

---

---

Vegetables

In relation to semi-hardy Vegetables, please identify where you believe a particular function associated with primary plastic packaging is critically important to enabling one or more of the activities listed in the left-hand column to be performed effectively and efficiently.

Comments:

---

---

4. Final comments

Is there anything that you would like to add regarding the comparative importance of discrete functions associated with primary plastic packaging for enabling the effective and efficient distribution of distinct types of fruits and vegetables from production through to consumers?

9. Bibliography

Ahmed, W., Haque, A., Mohibbullah, M., Khan, S.I., Islam, M.A., Mondal, H.T., Ahmmed, R. 2022. A Review on Active Packaging for Quality and Safety of Foods: Current Trends, Applications, Prospects And Challenges; Food Packaging and Shelf Life; Volume 33; 2022. Accessible at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fpsl.2022.100913.

Alamri, M.S., Qasem, A.A.A., Mohamed, A.A., Hussain, S., Ibraheem, M.H., Shamlan, G., Alqah, H.A., Qasha, A.S. 2021. Food packaging’s materials: A food safety perspective; Saudi Journal of Biological Sciences, 28(8): 4490-4499. Accessible at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1319562X21003090

Annelie. 2016. Factors That Influence the Respiration of Fruits and Vegetables; Food Crumbles; September 18, 2016. Accessible at: https://foodcrumbles.com/respiration-fruits-vegetables/

Anon. 2024. The Pathway to Selling More Uncut Fruit And Veg Loose; Resources Action Programme (WRAP). Accessible at: https://wrap.org.uk/resources/report/pathway-selling-more-uncut-fruit-and-veg-loose#download-file

Anon. 2023a. Produce Safety; Government of Canada. Accessible at: https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/general-food-safety-tips/produce-safety.html

Anon. 2023b. Sustainable Packaging Guide for Food and Fresh Produce; Canadian Produce Marketing Association, Canadian Plastics Pact, PAC Global, Food and Beverage Canada, Agriculture & Agri-Food Canada. Accessible from: https://sustainable-packaging.ca/

Anon. 2020. Food Packaging Sustainability; A Guide For Packaging Manufacturers, Food Processors,  Retailers, Political Institutions & NGOs; The Austrian Research Promotion Agency (FFG). Accessible at: https://denkstatt.eu/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/guideline_stopwaste_e_082020_web.pdf

Bambridge-Sutton, A. 2023. Extending Shelf Life Through Packaging: The Complexities and Variations; Food Navigator Europe, August 16, 2023. Accessible at: https://www.foodnavigator.com/Article/2023/08/16/Extending-shelf-life-through-packaging-The-complexities-and-variations

Becker, B.R., Fricke, B.A. 2002. Transpiration and Respiration of Fruits and Vegetables; University of Missouri-Kansas City. Accessible at: https://b.web.umkc.edu/beckerb/publications/chapters/trans_resp.pdf

Boyette, M., Sanders, D.C., Rutledge, G.A. 1996. Packaging Requirements for Fresh Fruits and Vegetables: Postharvest Technology Series; North Carolina State University. Accessible at: https://content.ces.ncsu.edu/packaging-requirements-for-fresh-fruits-and-vegetables

Brassard, M., Ritter, D. 2018. Memory Jogger 2  —  Second Edition; GOAL/QPC. Accessible at: https://goalqpc.com/product/memory-jogger-2-second-edition/

Caleb, O.J., Mahajan, P.V., Al-Said, F.AJ. Opara, U.L. 2013. Modified Atmosphere Packaging echnology of Fresh and Fresh-cut Produce and the Microbial Consequences — A Review. Food Bioprocess Technologies; 6, 303–329 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11947-012-0932-4

Conroy, C. 2023. Pathway to Selling More Uncut Fresh Fruit and Vegetables Loose; Waste & Resources Action Programme (WRAP). Accessible at: https://wrap.org.uk/sites/default/files/2023-10/FINAL_Pathway%20to%202025_v8_TS.pdf

Cox, J. Devine, R., Downing, P., Quested, T., White, H., Herszenhorn, E. 2022. Helping People to Reduce Fresh Produce and Dairy Waste: Citizen Insights On The Influence Of Packaging And Date Labels On Disposal Decisions; Waste & Resources Action Programme (WRAP). Accessible at: https://wrap.org.uk/sites/default/files/2022-02/Citizen-insights-on-the-influence-of-packaging-and-date-labels-on-disposal-decisions_0.pdf

Delibashi, A. 2022. Retail Foods; United States Department of Agriculture, Foreign Agricultural Service; July 2, 2023. Accessible at: https://apps.fas.usda.gov/newgainapi/api/Report/DownloadReportByFileName?fileName=Retail%20Foods_Ottawa_Canada_CA2022-0018.pdf

De Roever, C. 1998. Microbiological Safety Evaluations and Recommendations on Fresh Produce; Food Control; 9(6): 321-347. Accessible at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S095671359800022X

Dora, M., Lacovidou, E. 2019. Why Some Plastic Packaging Is Necessary To Prevent Food Waste And Protect The Environment; Phys Org; June 10, 2019. Accessible at: https://phys.org/news/2019-06-plastic-packaging-food-environment.html

Fadiji, T. Rashvand, M., Daramola, M.O., Iwarere, S.A. 2023. A Review on Antimicrobial Packaging for Extending the Shelf Life of Food; Technological Advancements in Food Processing and Packaging; Processes; 11(2): 590. Accessible at: https://www.mdpi.com/2227-9717/11/2/590

Forney, C.F. 2007. New Innovations in the Packaging of Fresh-Cut Produce; Acta Horticulturae 746, 53-60. Accessible from: https://doi.org/10.17660/ActaHortic.2007.746.5

Gokarn, S., Kuthambalayan, T.S. 2019. Creating Sustainable Fresh Produce Supply Chains by Managing Uncertainties; Journal of Cleaner Production; Volume 207, 2019, Pages 908-919. Accessible at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0959652618330865

Gooch, M., Bucknell, D., Laplain, D. 2023. Plastic Packaging Landscape Review: 2023 Update; Value Chain Management International. Accessible at: https://cpma.ca/docs/default-source/industry/sustainability/vcmi-update-of-plastic-packaging-landscape-review-for-cpma-103023.pdf

Gooch, M., Bucknell, D., LaPlain, D., Dent, B., Whitehead, Marenick, N. 2020. Less Food Loss and Waste, Less Packaging Waste; National Zero Waste Council. Accessible at: http://www.nzwc.ca/Documents/FLWpackagingReport.PDF

Gooch, M., Bucknell, D., Laplain, D., Whitehead, P. 2019. A Landscape Review of Plastic Packaging in The Canadian Fresh Produce Industry; Canadian Produce Marketing Association. Accessible at: https://cpma.ca/docs/default-source/corporate/2019/cpma-executive-summary-of-technical-report.pdf

Hall, D 2019. “Why replacing plastics is a complicated task”, Food Manufacture. June 17, 2019. Accessible at: https://www.foodmanufacture.co.uk/Article/2019/06/17/Food-experttackles-plastics-issue

Hussain, M.A., Gooneratne, R. 2017.Understanding the Fresh Produce Safety Challenges; Foods. 2017 Mar; 6(3): 23. Accessible at: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5368542/

Jung, J., Zhao, Y. 2016. Chapter 18 - Antimicrobial Packaging for Fresh and Minimally Processed Fruits and Vegetables; Editor(s): Jorge Barros-Velázquez; Antimicrobial Food Packaging; Academic Press; 2016; Pp: 243-256. Accessible at: https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-800723-5.00018-8

Karst, T. 2023. Five retailers dominate Canada's grocery sales; The Packer; February 2, 2023. Accessible at: https://www.thepacker.com/news/retail/five-retailers-dominate-canadas-grocery-sales#:~:text=The%20%22Who%27s%20Who%20Report%202021%20%28Canadian%20Grocer%29%22%20showed,Metro%2011%25.%204%20Sobeys%2020%25.%205%20Loblaw%2028%25

Kauffman; C. 2015. WRAP: Extending Product Life by One Day Will Prevent 250,000 Tons of Food Waste; Sustainable Brands; March 4, 2015. https://sustainablebrands.com/read/waste-not/wrap-extending-product-life-by-one-day-will-prevent-250-000-tons-of-food-waste

Koelsch Sand, C. 2021. Packaging Expands Fresh Produce Access; Food Technology Magazine; May 1, 2021. Accessible from: https://www.ift.org/news-and-publications/food-technology-magazine/issues/2021/may/columns/packaging-expands-fresh-produce-access

Lee, P., Osborn, S., Whitehead, P. 2015. Reducing food waste by extending product life; Project code: MAR103-101.

Lockhart, H.E. 1998. A Paradigm for Packaging; Packaging Technology & Science; 10(5):237-252. Accessible at: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/%28SICI%291099-1522%28199709/10%2910%3A5%3C237%3A%3AAID-PTS395%3E3.0.CO%3B2-%23

Lockrey, S., Verghese, K., Danaher, J., Newman, L., Barichello, V., Gama, L., D. 2019. The Role Of Packaging For Australian Fresh Produce; Australian Fresh Produce Alliance. Accessible at: http://freshproduce.org.au/__static/46a2ec4557d1f3fde09c35c70f57f8bf/afpa-report-2019-digital-book_(2).pdf?dl=1

Maddox, P. 2019. Removal Of Packaging Must Be Done Carefully To Avoid Food Waste; The Grocer: Environment; November 4, 2019. Accessible at: https://www.thegrocer.co.uk/environment/removal-of-packaging-must-be-done-carefully-toavoid-food-waste/599147.article

Marsh, K., Bugusu, B. 2007. Food Packaging - Roles, Materials, and Environmental Issues; Institute of Food Technologists; Journal of Food Science. April 2007. 72 (3), R39–R55. doi:10.1111/j.1750-3841.2007.00301 Accessible at: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/j.1750-3841.2007.00301.x

Meherishi, L., Narayana, S.A., Ranjani, K.S. 2019. Sustainable packaging for supply chain management in the circular economy: A review; Journal of Cleaner Production; Volume 237. Accessible at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0959652619323960

Molina-Besch, K., Wikström, F., Williams, H. 2019. “The Environmental Impact Of Packaging In Food Supply Chains — Does Life Cycle Assessment Of Food Provide The Full Picture?”, The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment. January 2019, Volume 24, Issue 1, pp 37–50. Accessible at: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11367-018-1500-6

Morashti, J.A., An, Y. Jang, H. 2022. A Systematic Literature Review of Sustainable Packaging in Supply Chain Management; Sustainability 2022, 14(9), 4921. Accessible at: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/9/4921

Norrelle, G. 2019. The Relationship Between Fresh Produce Packaging, Food Waste And Recycling In The Home; Australian Fresh Produce Alliance. Accessible at: https://freshproduce.org.au/__static/20c25269719b6982f387d678de41739c/afpa-consumer-research-report-2019-online.pdf?dl=1

Pålsson, H. Hellström, D. 2016. Packaging Logistics in Supply Chain Practice – Current State, Trade-Offs and Improvement Potential, International Journal of Logistics Research and Applications, 19:5, 351-368. Accessible at: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13675567.2015.1115472

Parry, A., James, K., LeRoux, S. 2015. Strategies To Achieve Economic And Environmental Gains By Reducing Food Waste; Waste & Resources Action Programme (WRAP). Accessible at: https://wrap.org.uk/resources/report/strategies-achieve-economic-and-environmental-gains-reducing-food-waste

Qadri, O.S., Yousuf, B. Srivastava, A.K. 2015 Fresh-Cut Fruits and Vegetables: Critical Factors Influencing Microbiology and Novel Approaches to Prevent Microbial Risks — A review; Cogent Food & Agriculture. Accessible at: https://doi.org/10.1080/23311932.2015.1121606

Quested, T., Devine, R., Herszenhorn, E., White, H., Palmer, G. 2022. Jasper, J. 2022. Helping People To Reduce Fresh-Produce Waste: Modelling The Impact Of Selling Products Loose Or In Packaging; Waste & Resources Action Programme (WRAP). Accessible at: https://wrap.org.uk/sites/default/files/2022-02/Modelling-the-impact-of-selling-products-loose-or-in-packaging.pdf

Quested, T., Palmer, G., Devine, R., White, H., Herszenhorn, E., Jasper, J. 2022. Helping people to reduce fresh produce and dairy waste: The impact of packaging and refrigeration on shelf life; Waste & Resources Action Programme (WRAP). Accessible at: https://wrap.org.uk/resources/report/helping-people-reduce-fresh-produce-waste

Quested, T., Palmer, G., Devine, R., White, H., Herszenhorn, E., Jasper, J. 2022. Helping People To Reduce Fresh Produce And Dairy Waste: The Impact Of Packaging And Refrigeration On Shelf Life; Waste & Resources Action Programme (WRAP). Accessible at: https://wrap.org.uk/sites/default/files/2022-02/The-impact-of-packaging-and-refrigeration-on-shelf-life.pdf

Robbins, J. 2023. Adding Up Innovation in Produce Packaging; Produce Business; May 1, 2023. Accessible at: https://www.producebusiness.com/adding-up-innovation-in-produce-packaging/#:~:text=%E2%80%9CUsing%20innovative%20packaging%20technology%20can%20help%20overcome%20logistical,longer%20periods%20of%20time%20than%20less%20optimized%20packaging.%E2%80%9D

Robertson, G.L. 2013. Food Packaging: Principles and Practice; Taylor Francis Publishing. Accessible at: https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/mono/10.1201/b21347/food-packaging-gordon-robertson

Sand, C. 2018. Packaging That Keeps Produce Fresh; IFT Food Technology Magazine; January 2018. Accessible at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/322632668_January_2018-_Packaging_That_Keeps_Produce_Fresh_in_IFT_Food_Technology_Magazine

Saputra, D. 2023. Packaging Materials in the Food Industry: Ensuring Freshness and Quality; SCM Guide; October 27, 2023. Accessible at: https://scmguide.com/packaging-materials-in-the-food-industry-ensuring-freshness-and-quality/

Stolte, E. 2021. Fighting food costs: Discount stores turn 'jobbed' veggies into deals; Canadian Broadcasting Corporation; November 16, 2021. Accessible at: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/discount-produce-calgary-cost-food-1.6242495#:~:text=Fighting%20food%20costs%3A%20Discount%20stores%20turn%20%27jobbed%27%20veggies,strawberries.%20...%203%20Watch%20for%20overripe%20produce%20

Verghese, K., Lewis, H., Lockrey, S., Williams, H. 2015. Packaging’s Role in Minimizing Food Loss and Waste Across the Supply Chain; Packaging Technology and Science; DOI: 10.1002/pts.2127. Accessible at: https://www.worldpackaging.org/Uploads/SaveTheFood/Packagingroleminimisingwaste.pdf

Versino, F., Ortega, F., Monroy, F., Rivero, S., López, O.V., García, M.A. 2023. Sustainable and Bio-Based Food Packaging: A Review on Past and Current Design Innovations; Foods. 2023 Mar; 12(5): 1057. Accessible at: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10000825/

Villahermosa, A.A.S., Binh, L.N, Rolle, R.S., Chonhenchob, V. 2011. Packaging in Fresh Produce Supply Chains in Southeast Asia; Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). Accessible at: https://www.fao.org/3/ba0135e/ba0135e00.pdf

White, A., Lockyer, S. 2020. Removing plastic packaging from fresh produce – what’s the impact? Nutrition Bulletin; 45(1): 35-50; February 16, 2020. Accessible at: https://doi.org/10.1111/nbu.12420

Wikström, F.; Williams, H.; Verghese, K.; Clune, S. 2014 The influence of packaging attributes on consumer behaviour in food-packaging life cycle assessment studies — A neglected topic. Clean. Production. 2014, 73, 100–108. Accessible at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0959652613007245

Zhuang, H., Barth, M.M., Cisneros-Zevallos, L. 2014. Chapter 18 - Modified Atmosphere Packaging for Fresh Fruits and Vegetables; Editor(s): Jung H. Han, In Food Science and Technology; Innovations in Food Packaging (Second Edition); Academic Press, 2014, Pp: 445-473. Accessible at: https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-394601-0.00018-7.

Zhuang, R., Beuchat, L., Angulo, F. 1995. Fate Of Salmonella Montevideo On And In Raw Tomatoes As Affected By Temperature And Treatment With Chlorine; Applied and Environmental Microbiology;  V.61: 2127 – 2131. Accessible at: https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:30098003