search.noResults

search.searching

dataCollection.invalidEmail
note.createNoteMessage

search.noResults

search.searching

orderForm.title

orderForm.productCode
orderForm.description
orderForm.quantity
orderForm.itemPrice
orderForm.price
orderForm.totalPrice
orderForm.deliveryDetails.billingAddress
orderForm.deliveryDetails.deliveryAddress
orderForm.noItems
VOICES 06


Dion Chang is the founder of Flux Trends:


www.fluxtrends.com


THE BUSINESS OF OLD(ER) AND UGLY FOOD


SMART FOOD. SMART IDEAS. WE’LL SOON BE WONDERING WHY WE’VE BEEN SO STUPID ABOUT WASTING PERFECTLY EDIBLE ITEMS….


W


hile you’re reading this, there’s no doubt something in your fridge that’s approaching its “best before” date, which you’ll inevitably throw away. We do it all the time, but awareness of just


how much food we waste is starting to surface. The Food & Agriculture Organisation (FAO),


the United Nations agency fighting global hunger, reports that one-third of food produced for human consumption is wasted globally. This translates to a staggering 1,3 billion tons of food wasted every year.


BAMBOOZLED BY “BEST BEFORE” The food waste happens throughout the supply


chain, from farms to households, where consumers are swayed by “sell by” or “best before” dates. Or they reject “ugly food”: perfectly edible items that are avoided because they’re naturally misshapen or slightly bruised. Farmers dump them. Supermarkets and restaurants reject them. Consumers avoid them simply because they adhere to an irrational notion that all produce should be perfectly formed. The global Ugly Food Movement started


in 2014, which was officially designated the European Year Against Food Waste, but it’s been a massive task convincing people that imperfect- looking produce is perfectly safe and edible. The word “ugly” had to be replaced by a euphemism to lure sceptical consumers. In France, these foods are referred to as “inglorious”. In Canada, they’re called “naturally imperfect”, while in the UK, they’re labelled “wonky”. Four years later, the world’s realising that “ugly foods” are not only generally better-tasting, but also cheaper, as farmers are only too happy to sell produce they’d previously have destroyed.


THE RISE OF UGLY As a business trend, companies are beginning


to capitalise on this shift in consumer mindset. Flashfoodbox, an American fresh produce delivery company, added an Ugly Produce Box to its product offering. The company simply approached its suppliers and asked if it could buy produce the supermarkets wouldn’t take. Canada’s largest food retailer, Loblaw,


launched a line of “Naturally Imperfect” fruits and veggies under its no-name house brand, which now offers 14 varieties of imperfect produce, both fresh and frozen. In May this year, UK supermarket chain


Tesco announced plans to remove “best before” dates from almost 70 fruit and vegetable products in an effort to reduce food waste. And in Holland, an ingenious partnership between Albert Heijn, one of the country’s largest supermarket chains, and an entrepreneur named Bart Roetert has resulted in a restaurant called Instock, which serves meals made entirely out of surplus food from the supermarket chain. But soon the Internet of Things will bring


technology into the food waste equation. Ovie is a Chicago, USA-based tech start-up that’s launched Smarterware, a range of fridge containers which have smart tags: glowing discs that change colour as an expiry date’s approaching. Each time you add food to your fridge, the tag uploads the new items to the cloud. An algorithm manages the freshness and each tag changes colour as it deteriorates. If you don’t look inside your fridge, you’ll receive an alert on your phone, and, if required, you’ll be sent recipe ideas based on the food in your fridge. Fancy. Smart!


WORDS: DION CHANG


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84  |  Page 85  |  Page 86  |  Page 87  |  Page 88  |  Page 89  |  Page 90  |  Page 91  |  Page 92  |  Page 93  |  Page 94  |  Page 95  |  Page 96  |  Page 97  |  Page 98  |  Page 99  |  Page 100  |  Page 101