Suboptimal Food Products Purchase as a Sustainable Practice: Consumer Perception and Purchasing Intention

Suboptimal Food Products Purchase as a Sustainable Practice: Consumer Perception and Purchasing Intention

Salomey Kingsley, Yaa Mawufemor Akubia, Doreen Dedo Adi

Catering and Hospitality Studies Department, Akenten Appiah-Menka University of Skills Training and Entrepreneurial Development, Kumasi, Ghana

DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2025.909000333

Received: 04 September 2025; Accepted: 12 September 2025; Published: 10 October 2025

ABSTRACT

Substantial quantities of suboptimal food that get spoiled and discarded in households and markets present a paradoxical situation in Ghana. The suboptimal foods, if salvaged, have the potential to provide sustenance for millions facing hunger. This clearly shows that there is a serious sustainability and management issue regarding suboptimal foods from the marketplaces. The study aimed at investigating consumer perspectives towards suboptimal food. The study used a descriptive survey design. The specific objectives of the study were to ascertain consumer perception towards the purchase of suboptimal food products and to explore the factors that influence consumers’ perception towards the purchase of suboptimal foods. Purposive and convenience sampling techniques were used in selecting consumers for the study. From a sampling frame of 1000, a sample of 177 consumers were used. The study made use of a questionnaire to gather information from the respondents. The finding showed that fruits, vegetables, roots, and tubers often reach a suboptimal stage at the central markets. Consumers perceived these suboptimal foods as generally being of lower quality, having inferior nutritional value, and more likely to cause health issues due to poor quality. It was discovered that the quality of suboptimal foods and unappealing appearance significantly influence consumers’ perceptions and purchasing decisions. Based on this, conclusions were made and it was recommended that the Ministry of Agriculture (MoA) should develop and implement educational campaigns to inform consumers about the environmental and economic benefits of purchasing suboptimal foods. These campaigns should highlight the role of suboptimal foods in reducing food waste and promoting sustainability. Also, market traders should offer discounts or promotions on suboptimal foods to make them more attractive to price-sensitive consumers.

Keywords — Suboptimal food, Perception, Purchase, Quality, Price, Environmental

INTRODUCTION

Food waste is an important global concern [1].  Globally, one-third of food produced goes to waste, with the yearly per capita wastage levels in the European Union ranging very widely between 72-541 kg [2]. In Ghana, estimates are that 20-30% of cereals and legumes and 20%50% of roots, tubers, fruits, and vegetables are wasted in storage, transport, or the points of sale [3]. A main reason for this situation includes the reluctance of supply chain actors and consumers to sell, buy, or consume food perceived as being suboptimal [4].

Suboptimal food products are usually referred to as oddly-shaped, irregular, visually flawed, or ugly products. These products differ from ideal standards primarily regarding external characteristics such as shape or appearance. However, there is no deviation in essential characteristics such as quality and safety [5] [6] [7].  In the Ghanaian context, a significant challenge unfolds as numerous suboptimal products are routinely discarded [8]. Suboptimal food that goes unpurchased or unconsumed often ends up spoiling and being discarded in landfills, creating significant environmental hazards [8]. As this food breaks down, it generates greenhouse gases, such as methane, which degrade air quality and pose risks to public health [9]. Moreover, the decomposition process can contaminate drinking water, leading to infections and disease transmission. The spread of waste also pollutes ecosystems, straining both the environment and the health of urban residents [9].

The substantial quantities of suboptimal food that get spoiled and discarded in households and markets present a paradoxical situation in Ghana. This surplus, if salvaged, has the potential to provide sustenance for millions facing hunger. Nevertheless, the government of Ghana incurs significant financial expenditures, amounting to millions of cedis, in both the production of uneaten food and the subsequent disposal of generated food waste [10]. This discrepancy highlights not only the economic inefficiency in the food production and waste management processes but also underscores the missed opportunity to alleviate food scarcity by harnessing the potential of discarded suboptimal food resources. [10] further reveal that Ghana city authorities spend about GH₵6.7 million ($3.45 million) per year collecting and transporting food waste for disposal, along with a further GH₵550,000.00 (equivalent to $0.28 million) per month in payments to waste management contractors and landfill maintenance. It thus becomes important to encourage the reduction of food waste, which is effectively possible through promoting the purchase and uptake of less-than-perfect food by Ghanaian consumers.

However, current studies conducted in different countries, excluding Ghana, have explored consumers’ purchase intentions regarding suboptimal food. These studies [11] [12] [13] [14] have contributed to the understanding of consumer behaviour about suboptimal food products. These studies, while conducted outside of Ghana, offer valuable insights into the complex dynamics of consumer behaviour in the context of suboptimal food. The findings may not be directly applicable to Ghana but inform future research and policies related to suboptimal food consumption in Ghana. This research fills the gap to better understand the consumers’ purchase intention toward suboptimal food in Ghana. The specific objectives of the study were to:

• Ascertain consumer perception towards the purchase of suboptimal food products.
• Explore the factors that influence consumers’ perception towards the purchase of suboptimal foods.

LITERATURE REVIEW

A. Concept of Suboptimal Food Product

The concept of suboptimal food has a historical perspective that reflects changing societal attitudes toward food consumption, waste, and sustainability [14]. In many traditional societies, there was a strong emphasis on using all available food resources efficiently [15]. People often made use of every part of a food item, including less visually appealing or slightly damaged portions to minimise food waste. With the advent of industrialization, food production and distribution became more standardized. Food aesthetics and shelf life became key factors in the food industry. Products that did not meet these standards were often discarded, leading to increased food waste [15].

According to [16], imperfect or abnormal food products, such as vegetables and fruits, are identified as suboptimal foods. These suboptimal foods are characterized by their deviation from normal or optimal products, with this divergence primarily concerning appearance standards, encompassing factors like weight, shape, colour, size, packaging, and date labelling [16]. Suboptimal food products are those that exhibit discrepancies with normal or optimal products in several ways, including (a) Appearance Standards: They differ based on various appearance criteria, including weight, shape, or size; (b) Date Labeling: Some suboptimal food products have date labels that place them in the proximity of or beyond the best-before date; (c) Packaging: Suboptimal food items may exhibit variations in their packaging, such as torn wrappers or dented cans. Importantly, these deviations do not extend to intrinsic quality or safety [4].

B. Consumers’ Perception towards Suboptimal Food

Consumers’ perceptions of suboptimal food are shaped by a myriad of factors that reflect their unique cultural, economic, and personal preferences. Understanding these factors is crucial in promoting the acceptance of suboptimal food products. The study by [16] that consumers perceived suboptimal food items as imperfect. These perceived imperfections make consumers hesitant when considering these options, as they are drawn to the more visually flawless appearance of conventional products. Consumers normally refuse to purchase abnormal vegetables and fruits because they believe that abnormality is a sign of inferior quality [17]. [18] demonstrated that consumers have a negative perception of suboptimal food than optimal food. Building on this insight, [19] further reinforced the notion that only a small fraction of consumers are willing to opt for suboptimal food when the quality and safety of these items match those of their optimal counterparts. This suggests that even if suboptimal food items are just as safe and suitable for consumption, consumers may still lean toward the conventional choice. In essence, their preference often gravitates towards what appears more visually appealing and familiar, despite the underlying quality or safety being on par with the suboptimal alternative.

In a study by [12], consumers with environmental concerns hold a more favourable perception of suboptimal food. They could interpret the purchase of these products to combat food waste and contribute to sustainability. Likewise, in research by [20], consumers with strong ethical values regarding food waste and resource conservation may view suboptimal food to align with their values and reduce their environmental footprint. 20 According to [21], consumers often disposed to accept suboptimal products, mainly because they are concerned with the environment and cook abilities. The study by [22], also emphasized that consumers seem to have low preferences to buy fruits and vegetables with unusual appearance, products with damaged packages and close to the expiration date, usually called suboptimal food products. However, rejection of suboptimal food is an important contributor to food waste levels.

C. Factors Influencing consumers’ Purchase Intention of Suboptimal Food

From research on consumer behaviors concerning selection of suboptimal foods, it has been established that holding other attributes constant, only few shoppers incline towards suboptimal food items rather than their optimal counterparts [23]. This consumer tendency is pretty rational because, to most consumers, suboptimal food tends to perceive inferior in some external aspects even when equal to others in terms of safety and core quality. Hence, consumers usually go for the optimal items when making purchasing decisions. [24]. Consumers’ intention to purchase suboptimal food is also described as Reasons For and Against [12].

Reasons For

Reasons For in the context of factors influencing consumers’ purchase intention refer to the specific motivations or underlying factors that drive individuals to consider or decide to buy a particular product or service [25]. These reasons can encompass various aspects such as price, quality, brand reputation, personal needs, social influences, and more. According to [26], the term ‘reasons for’ holds a significant role as it represents the driving forces or facilitators that can lead to positive perceptions among consumers. This notion was emphasized in a study conducted by [26]. [26] study focused on the concept of ‘reasons for’ as it relates to the combination of two key factors: price consciousness and environmental concerns.

Price Consciousness (PC)

Price consciousness is a significant factor that strongly influence consumer purchase intentions when it comes to suboptimal foods. This concept refers to a consumer’s heightened awareness and sensitivity to the prices of products [16]. Price-conscious consumers are often motivated by the prospect of saving money. Suboptimal foods are typically offered at a lower price than their “optimal” counterparts, making them an attractive option for budget-conscious shoppers [27]. Price-conscious consumers tend to evaluate products based on the perceived value they offer. When suboptimal foods are priced lower, these consumers may see them as a cost-effective way to obtain similar nutritional benefits compared to their more visually appealing counterparts [28].

Environmental Concern (EC)

Environmental concern is a significant factor that can strongly influence consumer purchase intentions when it comes to suboptimal foods [16]. The state of awareness about ecological problems, sympathies towards addressing such problems, and predisposing activeness aiming to solve them is termed as environmental concern (EC) [29]. It has been found by many studies that consumers with a higher level of environmental concern are more likely to intend to buy suboptimal foods since awareness drives them to make sustainable choices [29]. According to Wong et al. (2018), consumers with strong environmental concerns are often motivated by the desire to reduce food waste. Suboptimal foods, which might otherwise go to waste due to minor imperfections, can be seen to contribute to food waste reduction. Environmentally conscious consumers may seek out products that align with sustainable and eco-friendly practices [6]. [30] indicated that some consumers are driven by ethical considerations related to resource conservation and sustainability. They may view suboptimal foods as an ethical choice that minimizes resource waste and the environmental footprint associated with food production.

Reasons Against 

“Reasons against” refers to the factors or barriers that work against or resist the development of specific perceptions among consumers [6]. In the context of consumer behaviour or decision-making, these factors represent the obstacles that discourage consumers from adopting a particular attitude, making a specific choice, or forming certain beliefs [6]. “Reasons against” are essentially the opposite of “reasons for,” which are motivators or enablers that encourage favourable perceptions and behaviours. On a specific behaviour, the ‘reasons against’ represented the resistors that may prompt negative perceptions among consumers [26]. A study by [12] indicated that “reasons against” could include factors that deter consumers from choosing or having a positive perception of such products. These might be concerns related to safety, taste, appearance, or other negative aspects associated with suboptimal foods.

Inferior in Quality (IQ)

Inferior fruits and vegetables are usually the ones that have some noticeable defects or flaws, even if minor or major [16]. The perceptions of consumers regarding quality play a determining role in whether consumers are willing or not to purchase them [31]. Fruits and vegetables perceived as high quality will improve consumers’ intentions to purchase them, even if they are unsightly in appearance [32].  [30] indicated that quality inferiority is a condition where a product, in this case, suboptimal food, is perceived as having lower quality compared to its optimal or conventional counterpart. When consumers perceive suboptimal food as being of lower quality, it can significantly influence their purchase intentions. However, inferior quality has a negative impact on attitudes and purchase intention towards suboptimal food [33].

Unappealing appearance (UA)

Unappealing appearance refers to an intrinsic attribute with minor changes in food appearance such as abnormal size, shape, and colour [16]. Unappealing appearance is a factor that can significantly influence consumer purchase intention when it comes to suboptimal food [9]. According to [34] when consumers encounter suboptimal food products with an unappealing appearance, they may be less inclined to purchase them. Unappealing appearance can include irregular shapes, blemishes, discolouration, or packaging damage, among other factors. These visual cues can create a negative impression [34] [33]. [32] revealed that the unappealing appearance of suboptimal food can discourage consumers from selecting these items. Consumers may perceive them as less fresh compared to their optimal counterparts. This reduced purchase intention can contribute to higher food waste, as consumers may avoid buying suboptimal food items, they deem visually unappealing.

METHODOLOGY

A.Research design

The study adopted survey design. A survey is one that utilizes the distribution of questionnaires from a given sample or the entire population to capture attitudes, opinions, behaviors, or characteristics [23]. In light of the objectives of this study, it was considered appropriate, as it permitted the collection of data from a wide population in the shortest possible time. In addition, since this research intends to study consumers buying food items within the Kumasi Metropolis, the survey was useful in projecting the findings to the wider consumer population.

B. Population

The target population for the study comprised consumers who patronize food products at the various major markets in Kumasi Metropolis. The study covered consumers who purchase food product products from Asafo Market, Kejetia Market, Bantama Market, and Racecourse Markets. According to the study, there are over 1,000 average customers in these selected markets within the Kumasi Metropolis. Such figures ensure the availability of vast populations for sampling in this research. These markets are known for covering various informal activities ranging from market stall operations to open-air trading.

C. Sampling Technique and Sampling Size

Multi-stage sampling technique was adopted in the selection of the respondents for the study. The first stage involved the selection of the major markets (Asafo Market, Kejetia Market, Bantama Market, and Racecourse Markets) using a purposive sampling technique. The purposive sampling was used to focus on characteristics of a population that are of interest. The second stage involves the selection of consumers from the sampled major markets. In the selection of the consumers, a convenience sampling technique was employed. The convenience sampling technique was used to select the consumers who purchase from these market traders. From a sampling frame of 1000, a sample of 177 consumers were selected. Sample size of the study was attained from the table which was formed by [35].

D.Data collection instrument

Questionnaire was utilized as the method for data collection. Its design was geared toward consumers frequenting the major markets within the Kumasi Metropolis. Thus, it involved selected themes pertaining to consumers’ perceptions of purchasing food products considered suboptimal and other influences on those perceptions. To elicit responses from the participants, respondents were asked to indicate their degree of agreement to a number of statements through a tick (√) mark in the appropriate box. The five-point Likert scale ranging from 5 to 1, with 5 standing for strongly agree and 1 indicating strongly disagree, enabled the capture of an opinion with subtleties such as neutral position and facilitated a structured ranking of responses that could then be analyzed for consumer attitudes toward unsatisfactory food products in terms of distribution and intensity.

E.Data Analysis

The collected data were coded and keyed into the SPSS for analyzing. Descriptive statistics were used in presenting an overview of the responses. Specifically, frequencies and percentages summarized categorical variables, while means and standard deviations were used to describe continuous variables. The data was interpreted accordingly and give complete understanding of respondents’ views and behaviors.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

A. Demographic Characteristics of Participants

Data collected under the background of respondents include gender, age, educational qualification, occupation and income level. The background of respondents was very necessary to describe the peculiar characteristics of the respondents. Table 1 shows the background characteristics of the respondents.

Table 1: Background Information of Respondents

As shown in Table 1, 27.1% of the respondents were male, whereas 72.9% were female. This indicates that the majority of consumers visiting the various central markets are female. Regarding the age group of the consumers, 9.0% respondents were aged between 18-20 years, 50.3% were aged between 31-40 years, 34.5% respondents were aged between 41-50 years, and 6.2% respondents were above 50 years old. Regarding the education level of the consumers, 4.5% respondents had no formal education, while 0.6% had primary education, 7.3% respondents had junior high school education, and 4.5% respondents had attained senior high school education. The remaining 83.1% respondents had attained education up to the tertiary level. Regarding the employment status of the consumers, 0.6% was a student, 97.7% were employed, and 1.7% indicated that they were unemployed. Regarding the income levels of the consumers, 3.4% respondents reported receiving Gh¢500 every month. A slightly higher number, 4.0% respondents, indicated that they receive between Gh¢500-Gh¢1000 monthly. Additionally, 9.0% respondents stated that their monthly income ranges from Gh¢1001- Gh¢1500. On the higher end of the income spectrum, 14.1% reported receiving Gh¢1501- Gh¢2000 per month, while 32.2% respondents asserted that they earn between Gh¢2001 and Gh¢2500 monthly. Furthermore, 24.9% respondents indicated that their monthly income falls between Gh¢2501- Gh¢3000. The remaining 12.4% respondents reported earning more than Gh¢3000 every month.

B. Consumer perception towards the purchase of suboptimal food products

The consumers were asked to indicate their level of agreement on their perception towards the purchase of suboptimal food products. The perception was measured with mean and standard deviations and the significant mean level was fixed at 3.0. The results obtained are presented in Table 2.

Table 2: Perception Towards the Purchase of Suboptimal Food Products

Note: Agreed: > 3.0, Disagreed: <3.0

Quality Perception

Table 2 illustrates that the mean interpretation of all items for quality perception was above the threshold of 3.0. The results indicate that consumers believe suboptimal foods are generally of lower quality compared to other options, with a mean score of 3.51. Respondents perceive suboptimal foods as having inferior nutritional value, as shown by a mean score of 3.34. Concerns about health issues due to the perceived poor quality of suboptimal foods are also significant, with a mean score of 3.30. Furthermore, consumers consider suboptimal foods to have a lower standard of hygiene and cleanliness, supported by a mean score of 3.26. Moreover, consumers think suboptimal foods are more prone to contamination and spoilage, scoring a mean of 3.66. The findings show that consumers have reservations regarding the quality and safety of suboptimal food products, with an overall perception score of 3.41.

Price perception

As depicted in Table 2, the mean score of all price perception items was above the threshold of 3.0, indicating a generally positive consumer view regarding the affordability of suboptimal foods. Consumers believe that suboptimal foods are priced affordably compared to other options, with this statement receiving a mean score of 3.65. Consumers consider suboptimal foods to be a cost-effective choice for their budget, as reflected by a mean score of 3.07. Furthermore, with a mean of 3.02, consumers perceive suboptimal foods to be a more economical option compared to regular alternatives. Conversely, the respondents believe that suboptimal foods offer a reasonable price relative to their quality, supported by a mean score of 3.38. The findings indicate that consumers acknowledge the financial benefits of purchasing suboptimal foods, with an overall mean score of 3.28.

Sustainable perception

The consumers believe that choosing suboptimal foods contributes to a more sustainable food system, with a mean score of 3.68. However, the consumers disagreed with the perception that purchasing suboptimal foods aligns with sustainable and eco-friendly practices, reflected by a mean score of 2.51. Additionally, the consumers disagreed that consuming suboptimal foods supports efforts to create a more sustainable food supply, with a mean score of 2.91. Furthermore, with a mean score of 2.86, the respondents disagreed that purchasing suboptimal foods reduces food insecurity. The findings show a mixed perception among consumers regarding the sustainability aspect of suboptimal food, with an overall mean score of 2.99.

C. Factors that influence consumers’ perception of suboptimal foods

The consumers were asked to indicate their level of agreement on factors that influence their perception of the purchase of suboptimal foods. The factors were measured with mean and standard deviations and the significant mean level was fixed at 3.0. Table 3 presents the results.

Table 3: Responses on factors that influence consumers’ perception

Note: Agreed: > 3.0, Disagreed: <3.0

Inferior (I)

In addressing the inferiority as a factor influencing the purchase perception of suboptimal foods, consumers revealed that they consider the nutritional value of these foods before deciding to buy them. This consideration had a mean score of 3.64. Additionally, with a mean score of 3.40, consumers indicated that they are more likely to buy suboptimal foods if they believe the quality is not compromised. Consumers further agreed that the perceived safety of suboptimal foods significantly affects their decision to include them in their purchases, as reflected by a mean score of 3.53. Moreover, the perceived hygiene and cleanliness of suboptimal foods play a crucial role in their purchase decisions, with this factor showing a mean score of 3.81. The findings reveal that concerns about the inferiority in quality of suboptimal foods significantly influence consumers’ perceptions and purchasing decisions, with an average mean score of 3.59.

Unappealing Appearance (UA)

From Table 6, the findings indicate that consumers’ willingness to buy suboptimal foods is significantly influenced by their appearance. Consumers agreed that an abnormal size decreases their willingness to purchase suboptimal foods, with a mean score of 3.84. The respondents agreed that changes in shape make them less likely to buy these foods, reflected in a mean score of 3.77. The findings also show that an unclean appearance decreases consumers’ willingness to buy suboptimal foods, with a mean score of 3.92. Furthermore, consumers agreed that colour change and visual presentation significantly affect their purchase intention for suboptimal foods, indicated by a mean score of 3.88. The findings show that an unappealing appearance significantly influences consumers’ perception and purchase of suboptimal foods, with an overall mean score of 3.85.

Price Consciousness (PC)

The respondents generally perceived a financial advantage in purchasing suboptimal foods, with a mean score of 3.39, indicating a moderate agreement that these foods are cheaper. Additionally, respondents found it relatively easy to negotiate price reductions on suboptimal foods, reflected by a mean score of 3.89, suggesting a favourable view of bargaining opportunities. In terms of budget-friendliness, respondents agreed that suboptimal foods serve as cost-effective alternatives when shopping, with a mean score of 3.73. This aligns with the perception that these foods are practical for those looking to manage their budgets. Furthermore, respondents believed that suboptimal foods offer good value for their price, as indicated by 3.17 mean score. This suggests a consensus that, despite their appearance, suboptimal foods are considered worthwhile purchases relative to their cost. The findings reveal that price consciousness has a significant impact on consumers’ perceptions and purchase intentions toward suboptimal food products, with an average score of 3.54.

Environmental Concern (EC)

The findings indicate mixed attitudes among consumers regarding the purchase of suboptimal foods and their environmental impact. Consumers generally agreed that they are willing to reduce environmental damage by purchasing suboptimal foods, reflected by a mean score of 3.79. However, there was disagreement on several other aspects. Consumers did not believe that purchasing low-standard fruits and vegetables positively impacts environmental protection, with a mean score of 2.42. They also disagreed that buying “ugly” fruits and vegetables could help solve broader life problems, as shown by a mean score of 1.76. Additionally, consumers did not consider it wise to purchase low-standard fruits and vegetables, with a mean score of 1.81. Moreover, there was a clear reluctance to buy products close to their expiry date, as evidenced by a mean score of 1.57. The mean score indicates that environmental concern does not significantly influence consumer perception and purchase intention of suboptimal food products, with a score of 2.27, falling below the predetermined cut-off point

DISCUSSION OF RESULTS

The findings show that consumers have reservations regarding the quality and safety of suboptimal food products. This perception aligns with the observations of [24], who noted that consumers worry about the freshness and quality of suboptimal food, citing potential health risks. [19] further reinforced this notion, highlighting that consumers have reservations about the quality and safety of suboptimal foods. The findings further indicated that consumers acknowledge the financial benefits of purchasing suboptimal foods. Despite potential concerns about the quality of suboptimal foods, consumers appreciate the reasonable prices they offer. This suggests that the economic advantages of suboptimal foods are a significant factor influencing consumer purchasing decisions. The findings align with [12], who observed that the role of price in consumer perceptions of suboptimal food is significant. [12] noted that consumers view suboptimal foods as affordable and budget-friendly options despite potential concerns about their quality. Again, the findings show a mixed perception among consumers regarding the sustainability aspect of suboptimal food. While consumers recognize the potential contribution to a more sustainable food system by purchasing suboptimal foods, they remain skeptical sceptical about the broader environmental and social impacts of purchasing and consuming these products. These findings confirm the observations of [21], who noted that consumers do not consider the environmental and social impacts of purchasing and consuming suboptimal products.

The findings reveal that concerns about the inferiority in quality, unappealing appearance, and price of suboptimal foods significantly influence consumers’ perceptions and purchasing decisions. Consumers consider the nutritional value, perceived quality and safety, as well as the hygiene and cleanliness of suboptimal foods as crucial factors in their purchase decisions. This finding aligns with [33], who noted that when consumers perceive suboptimal food as inferior in quality, they may associate it with various negative attributes such as reduced freshness, taste, nutritional value, or safety concerns. The finding confirms a study by [34], who observed that when consumers encounter suboptimal food products with an unappealing appearance, they may be less inclined to purchase them. Unappealing appearance can include irregular shapes, blemishes, discolouration, or packaging damage, among other factors. Suboptimal foods are also perceived as budget-friendly options, and they are regarded as offering good value for their price. These insights align with the research by [16], who noted that price consciousness is a crucial factor influencing consumer purchase intentions for suboptimal foods. Furthermore, [30] observed that individuals who are conscious of prices may be more willing to overlook the appearance of a product if they believe it represents a good deal.

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The substantial quantities of suboptimal food that gets spoiled and discarded in households and markets present a paradoxical situation in Ghana. The suboptimal foods, if salvaged, have the potential to provide sustenance for millions facing hunger. According to the study the fruits, vegetables, roots, and tubers often reach a suboptimal stage at the central markets. Consumers perceived these suboptimal foods as generally being of lower quality, having inferior nutritional value, and more likely to cause health issues due to poor quality. The consumers believed that suboptimal foods as affordable a cost-effective choice, and a more economical option compared to regular alternatives. It was discovered that inferiority in quality of suboptimal foods, and unappealing appearance significantly influence consumers’ perceptions and purchasing decisions. According to the study, price consciousness has a significant impact on consumers’ perceptions and purchase intentions toward suboptimal food products. However, environmental concern does not significantly influence consumer perception and purchase intention of suboptimal food products. It was recommended that the Ministry of Agriculture (MoA) should develop and implement educational campaigns to inform consumers about the environmental and economic benefits of purchasing suboptimal foods. These campaigns should highlight the role of suboptimal foods in reducing food waste and promoting sustainability. Market traders should offer discounts or promotions on suboptimal foods to make them more attractive to price-sensitive consumers. This can help shift consumer perceptions and increase purchase intentions.

Limitations

One significant limitation is the challenge of generalizing the results beyond the confines of the Kumasi Metropolis. Urban areas often have distinct characteristics and consumer preferences compared to rural areas or other urban centres. Therefore, the findings may not accurately reflect consumers’ perspectives on suboptimal food in other contexts. Another limitation was the use of a questionnaire for the consumers. This prevented them from providing additional information for the study.

Future Research

There is a need to conduct a similar study that would involve market traders in different parts of Ghana to ascertain their perception of suboptimal foods. There is a need to conduct a study specifically to find out the views of the farmers and the city authorities on suboptimal foods.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

We acknowledge the support received from market traders at the various major markets in Kumasi Metropolis.

REFERENCES

1. G. Garcia-Garcia, E. Woolley, and S. Rahimifard, A framework for a more efficient approach to food waste management. International Journal of Food Engineering, vol. 1, Iss. 1, 2015, pp. 65-72.
2. FAO, World food and agriculture, 2020. Retrieved from https://openknowledge.fao.org/server/api/core/bitstreams/fe3b44ad-553a-4d2f-b8d9-d0ef1dc509ed/content. Accessed: March, 9, 2024.
3. H.Z. Yengnone, Examining the Causes and Prevalence of Food Loss in Techiman Market, Ghana (Master’s thesis, The University of Western Ontario (Canada), 2024.
4. J. Aschemann-Witzel, I. E. de Hooge, and V.L. Almli, Suboptimal food? Food waste at the consumer–retailer interface. In Saving food, Academic Press, 2019, pp. 347-368.
5. I.E. De Hooge, Promoting the imperfect: Marketing strategies to reduce product waste. In Imperfections: Studies in Mistakes, Flaws, and Failures; Kemper, J., Kelly, C., Rutten, E., Eds.; Bloomsbury Academic: New York, NY, USA, 2021.
6. T. Hartmann, B. Jahnke, and U. Hamm, Making ugly food beautiful: Consumer barriers to purchase and marketing options for Suboptimal Food at the retail level—A systematic review. Food Quality Preference, vol. 90, pp. 104179, 2021.
7. B.E. Pfeiffer, A. Sundar, and H. Deval, Not too ugly to be tasty: Guiding consumer food inferences for the greater good. Food Quality Prefer., vol. 92, pp. 104218, 2021.
8. M.E. Abalo, P. Peprah, J. Nyonyo, R. Ampomah-Sarpong, and W.A. Agyemang-Duah, Review of the Triple Gains of Waste and the Way Forward for Ghana. Journal of Renewable Energy, vol. 1, pp. 1-12, 2018.
9. A.K. Sahu, R. Padhy, and A. Dhir, Envisioning the future of behavioural decision-making: A systematic literature review of behavioural reasoning theory. Australas. Marketing Journal, pp. 145–159, 2020.
10. S.Y. Lissah, M.A. Ayanore, J.K. Krugu, M. Aberese-Ako, and R.A. Ruiter, Managing urban solid waste in Ghana: Perspectives and experiences of municipal waste company managers and supervisors in an urban municipality. PloS one, vol 16, Iss. 3, pp. 0248392.
11. H.H. Chang, Effectiveness of environmental claims in preventing food waste: exploring consumer perspectives toward suboptimal food. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, pp. 1-13, 2022.
12. H.S. Tufail, R.M.S. Yaqub, S. Ramzan, and F.J. Baig, To buy or not to buy? consumers’ purchase intention toward suboptimal food in Pakistan. Bulletin of Business and Economics, vol. 11, pp. 93-103, 2022.
13. I.E. De Hooge, R.I.V. Giesen, K.A.H. Leijsten, and C.S.V. Herwaarden, Increasing the Sales of Suboptimal Foods with Sustainability and Authenticity Marketing Strategies. Foods (Basel, Switzerland), vol. 11, Iss. 21, pp. 3420, 2022.
14. E. Varese, M.C. Cesarani, and M. Wojnarowska, Consumers’ perception of suboptimal food: strategies to reduce food waste. British Food Journal, vol. 125, Iss. 1, pp. 361-378, 2023.
15. J. Aschemann-Witzel, A. Gim´enez, and G. Ares, Suboptimal food, careless store? Consumer’s associations with stores selling foods with imperfections to counter food waste in the context of an emerging retail market. Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 12, Iss. 1, pp. 252, 2020.
16. Y. Xu, E. Jeong, S.S. Jang, and X. Shao, Would you bring home ugly produce? Motivators and demotivators for ugly food consumption. Journal Retailers Consumers Service, vol. 59, pp. 102376, 2021.
17. A. Giménez, J. Aschemann-Witzel, and G. Ares, Exploring barriers to consuming suboptimal foods: A consumer perspective. Food Res. International, vol. 141, pp. 1, 2021.
18. [18] H.W. Jang, and M. Cho, The relationship between ugly food value and consumers’ behavioural intentions: Application of the Theory of Reasoned Action. Journal of Hospitality Tourism Management, vol. 50, pp. 259–266, 2022.
19. J.R. Helmert, C. Symmank, S. Pannasch, and H. Rohm, Have an eye on the buckled cucumber: An eye-tracking study on visually suboptimal foods. Food Quality Preference, vol. 60, pp. 40–47, 2017.
20. L.A. Bolos, C.J. Lagerkvist, A. Normann, and K. Wendin, In the eye of the beholder: Expected and actual liking for apples with visual imperfections. Food Quality Preference, vol. 87, pp. 10-40, 2021.
21. I.D. Stangherling, D.J.L. Ribeiro, and M. Barcellos, Consumer behaviour towards suboptimal food products: a strategy for food waste reduction. British Food Journal, vol. 121, Iss. 10, pp. 2396-2412.
22. C. Symmank, S. Zahn, and H. Rohm, Visually suboptimal bananas: How ripeness affects consumer expectation and perception. Appetite, vol. 120, pp. 472–481, 2018.
23. J.W. Creswell, Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson, 2012.
24. C. Yang, J.C. Tu, and Q. Jiang, The influential factors of consumers’ sustainable consumption: A case on electric vehicles in China. Sustainability, vol. 12, pp. 3496, 2020.