CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 59Food Waste Reduction and SustainabilityPostharvest Quality and Shelf Life ManagementAgriculture Sustainability and Environmental Impact

Estimated fresh produce shrink and food loss in U.S. supermarkets

Open access
Buzby, Jean, Bentley, Jeanine, Padera, Beth, Ammon, Cara, Campuzano, Jennifer·2015·Agriculture
DOI 10.3390/agriculture5030626
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Data on fresh fruit and vegetable shrink in supermarkets is important to help understand where and how much shrink could potentially be reduced by supermarkets to increase their profitability. This study provides: (1) shrink estimates for 24 fresh fruits and 31 fresh vegetables in U.S. supermarkets in 2011 and 2012; and (2) retail-level food loss. For each covered commodity, supplier shipment data was aggregated from a sample of 2900 stores from one national and four regional supermarket retailers in the United States, and this sum was then compared with aggregated point-of-sale data from the same stores to estimate the amount of shrink by weight and shrink rates. The 2011–2012 average annual shrink rates for individual fresh vegetables varied from 2.2 percent for sweet corn to 62.9 percent for turnip greens and for individual fresh fruit ranged from 4.1 percent for bananas to 43.1 percent for papayas. When these shrink estimates were used in the Loss-Adjusted Food Availability data series, annual food loss for these commodities totaled 5.9 billion pounds of fresh fruit and 6.1 billion pounds of fresh vegetables. This study extends the literature by providing important information on where and how much shrink could potentially be reduced. Precise comparisons across studies are difficult. This information, combined with information on available and cost-effective technologies and practices, may help supermarkets target food loss reduction efforts though food loss will never be zero.

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

This study estimates 2011–2012 fresh produce shrink for 24 fruits and 31 vegetables in U.S. supermarkets and uses those shrink rates as retail-level food loss assumptions in USDA/ERS Loss-Adjusted Food Availability data. It finds wide variation by commodity, with average shrink ranging from 2.2% for sweet corn to 62.9% for turnip greens among vegetables and from 4.1% for bananas to 43.1% for papayas among fruits.

Key findings

  • For 2011–2012, average annual shrink for individual fresh vegetables ranged from 2.2% for sweet corn to 62.9% for turnip greens; for individual fresh fruits it ranged from 4.1% for bananas to 43.1% for papayas.
  • Estimated uneaten whole fresh fruit totaled 5.9 billion pounds per year in 2012; after removing the nonedible share, edible fruit loss totaled 4.2 billion pounds.
  • Estimated uneaten whole fresh vegetables totaled 6.1 billion pounds per year; after removing the nonedible share, edible vegetable loss totaled 5.0 billion pounds.
  • The top fruits by amount of uneaten whole fresh fruit were watermelon, apples, and pineapples; after removing inedible portions, the top three were apples, watermelon, and pineapple. The top vegetables by amount of uneaten whole fresh vegetables were potatoes, tomatoes, and romaine and leaf lettuce, and the same three remained top after removing inedible portions.

Methods

  • Supplier shipment data were aggregated from a sample of about 2,900 stores from five large national and regional supermarket chains in all four U.S. regions, then compared with aggregated point-of-sale data from the same stores to estimate shrink by weight and shrink rates for 2011 and 2012.
  • For each covered commodity, shrink was calculated as total pounds delivered into sample stores but not sold, divided by total pounds delivered; the 2011–2012 average shrink was then used.
  • Retail-level food loss estimates were calculated by multiplying 2012 per capita retail weight for each whole commodity in LAFA, the 2012 U.S. population, and the 2011–2012 average shrink estimate, then applying the LAFA nonedible share to estimate edible food loss.

Limitations

  • The paper states that using supermarket shrink as a proxy for food loss is a limitation: shrink is broader than food loss and includes components such as theft, so the resulting loss estimates are an upper bound.
  • The paper states that precise comparisons across studies are difficult because definitions, reference bases, and coverage differ; processed or preserved produce and fresh fruit/vegetable mixtures were excluded due to unavailable data.
  • The paper states the sample was limited by the number of stores providing shipment data, not by point-of-sale store coverage, and it does not estimate how much of the entire food sales market is covered by the sample; the text also makes evident that only food-channel stores were included and certain retailers were excluded.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3390/agriculture5030626

Cites

27 of 27 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Claims the paper makes

0 of 29 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

  • Findingown data

    When the study's shrink estimates were used in the Loss-Adjusted Food Availability data series, annual food loss for fresh vegetables totaled 6.1 billion pounds.

    “and 6.1 billion pounds of fresh vegetables.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • The authors state this as an assumption: Food loss is a large component of supermarket shrink for fresh fruits and vegetables, and supermarket shrink for fresh produce is an adequate proxy for food loss of fresh produce items at the retail level.
  • Findingown data

    The 2011-2012 average annual shrink rate for individual fresh fruit in U.S. supermarkets ranged from 4.1 percent for bananas to 43.1 percent for papayas.

    “and for individual fresh fruit ranged from 4.1 percent for bananas to 43.1 percent for papayas.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    When the study's shrink estimates were used in the Loss-Adjusted Food Availability data series, annual food loss for fresh fruit totaled 5.9 billion pounds.

    “annual food loss for these commodities totaled 5.9 billion pounds of fresh fruit”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • The authors state this as an assumption: Food loss is a large component of supermarket shrink for fresh fruits and vegetables, and supermarket shrink for fresh produce is an adequate proxy for food loss of fresh produce items at the retail level.
  • Findingown data

    The 2011-2012 average annual shrink rate for individual fresh vegetables in U.S. supermarkets varied from 2.2 percent for sweet corn to 62.9 percent for turnip greens.

    “The 2011-2012 average annual shrink rates for individual fresh vegetables varied from 2.2 percent for sweet corn to 62.9 percent for turnip greens”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    Average fruit shrink was in a narrower range: 4.1 percent for bananas to 43.1 percent for fresh papayas.

    “Average fruit shrink was in a narrower range: 4.1 percent for bananas to 43.1 percent for fresh papayas.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims. 32
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 32

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Despite a large decline in shrink between 2011 and 2012 (24.5 percentage points), papayas remained the fresh fruit with the highest 2011-2012 average shrink (43.1 percent).

    “Despite a large decline in shrink between 2011 and 2012 (24.5 percentage points), papayas remained the fresh fruit with the highest 2011-2012 average shrink (43.1 percent).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The largest shrink percentage-point increases between 2011 and 2012 were for pineapple (5.3 percentage points) and peaches (5 percentage points).

    “The largest shrink percentage-point increases between 2011 and 2012 were for pineapple (5.3 percentage points) and peaches (5 percentage points).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The estimated shrink for fresh fruit at the supermarket level was 13.3 percent in 2011 and 12.3 percent in 2012.

    “The estimated shrink for fresh fruit at the supermarket level was 13.3 percent in 2011 and 12.3 percent in 2012 (Table 1).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Outliers were found across fruit and vegetable categories, and varied by retailer.

    “Outliers were found across fruit and vegetable categories, and varied by retailer.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingnone given

    In 2011-2012, pineapples (32.2 percent) and apricots (30 percent) had the second and third highest average shrink.

    “In 2011-2012, pineapples (32.2 percent) and apricots (30 percent) had the second and third highest average shrink.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Estimated shrink for papayas and mustard greens were high in both studies out of all fresh fruits and vegetables respectively.

    “For example, estimated shrink for papayas and mustard greens were high in both studies out of all fresh fruits and vegetables respectively.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingcitation

    The overall average supermarket shrink rates here (weighted by commodity value) were 1.2 percentage point higher for fresh fruit and 2.2 percentage points higher for fresh vegetables than in 2005-2006.

    “The overall average supermarket shrink rates here (i.e., weighted by commodity value) were 1.2 percentage point higher for fresh fruit and 2.2 percentage points higher for fresh vegetables than in 2005-2006 [8].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [8] Buzby, J.C., Wells, H.F., Axtman, B., and Mickey, J. (2009). Supermarket Loss Estimates for Fresh Fruit, Vegetables, Meat, Poultry, and Seafood and their Use in the ERS Loss-Adjusted Food Availability Data.

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The highest average fresh vegetable shrink estimates in 2011-2012 were for fresh turnip greens (62.9 percent), fresh mustard greens (61.1 percent), escarole/endive (47.4 percent), collard greens (43.8 percent), and okra (40.2 percent).

    “The highest average fresh vegetable shrink estimates in 2011-2012 were for fresh turnip greens (62.9 percent), fresh mustard greens (61.1 percent), escarole/endive (47.4 percent), collard greens (43.8 percent), and okra (40.2 percent).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Of the BSR-estimated total food waste in U.S. retail and wholesale sectors, 55.6 percent or 2.1 billion pounds was diverted from landfills and incineration to higher uses.

    “Of this amount, 55.6 percent or 2.1 billion pounds was diverted from landfills and incineration to higher uses”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [12] BSR (2013). Food Waste among Food Manufactures, Retailers, and Wholesalers, BSR. Prepared for the Food Waste Reduction Alliance.

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductnone given

    Nielsen Perishables Group ensured a good cross section of retailers by developing a sample of retail chains that included larger national chains and smaller regional chains, retailers from all regions of the country, and traditional supermarkets along with mass merchandisers/super stores.

    “Nielsen Perishables Group ensured a good cross section of retailers by developing a sample of retail chains which included: (1) larger national chains and smaller regional chains; (2) retailers from all regions of the country; and (3) traditional supermarkets along with mass merchandisers/super stores.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    This scarcity of peer-reviewed articles is particularly true for articles on food loss or waste generated on farms and at the food manufacturer/retail level more broadly and for the subset of articles on national fresh produce loss and waste at the retail level.

    “This is particularly true for articles on food loss or waste generated on farms [26] and at the food manufacturer/retail level more broadly [18,27] and for the subset of articles on national fresh produce loss and waste at the retail level.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites [26] Hodges, 2010, Postharvest losses and waste in developed and developing countries: opportunities to improve resource use, J. Agric. Sci.

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [18] Mena, 2011, The causes of food waste in the supplier–retailer interface: Evidences from the UK and Spain, Resour. Conserv. Recycl. source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [27] Gustavsson, 2011, Retail waste of horticultural products in Sweden, Resour. Conserv. Recycl. source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Because produce is not a high ticket item relative to meat, poultry, seafood, and many other non-food products in supermarkets, theft is likely not a notable issue for fresh produce.

    “produce is not a high ticket item, relative to meat, poultry, and seafood and many other non-food products in supermarkets: the implication is that theft is likely not a notable issue for fresh produce.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    Of the 7 retail chains asked to participate in the shipment data portion of the project, 5 participated, a 71 percent response rate.

    “We asked a total of 7 retail chains to participate in the shipment data portion of the project and 5 participated, thus we had a 71 percent response rate.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    In the United States, food loss accounted for 31 percent-or 133 billion pounds-of the 430 billion pounds of available food supply at the retail and consumer levels in 2010, and retail-level losses represented 10 percent (43 billion pounds) of that amount.

    “a recent ERS study found that in the United States, food loss accounted for 31 percent-or 133 billion pounds-of the 430 billion pounds of the available food supply at the retail and consumer levels in 2010, and of this amount, retail-level losses represented 10 percent (43 billion pounds) [7].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [7] Buzby, J.C., Wells, H.F., and Hyman, J. (2014). The Estimated Amount, Value, and Calories of Postharvest Food Losses at the Retail and Consumer Levels in the United States. source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    The BSR study estimated that total food waste in both retail and wholesale sectors in the United States combined was 3.8 billion pounds.

    “The BSR study estimates that the total amount of food waste in both retail and wholesale sectors in the United States combined was 3.8 billion pounds.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [12] BSR (2013). Food Waste among Food Manufactures, Retailers, and Wholesalers, BSR. Prepared for the Food Waste Reduction Alliance.

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    There are few peer-reviewed articles on national food loss and waste for developed countries and the estimates that do exist vary widely.

    “There are few peer-reviewed articles on national food loss and waste for developed countries and the estimates that do exist vary widely [11].”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [11] Parfitt, 2010, Food waste within food supply chains: Quantification and potential for change to 2050, Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Biol. Sci. Biol. Sci. source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Annual supermarket shrink in the United States for 2005 and 2006 averaged 11.4 percent for fresh fruit and 9.7 percent for fresh vegetables by weight.

    “This study found that annual supermarket shrink in the United States for 2005 and 2006 averaged 11.4 percent for fresh fruit and 9.7 percent for fresh vegetables by weight (i.e., not value of retail sales).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [8] Buzby, J.C., Wells, H.F., Axtman, B., and Mickey, J. (2009). Supermarket Loss Estimates for Fresh Fruit, Vegetables, Meat, Poultry, and Seafood and their Use in the ERS Loss-Adjusted Food Availability Data.

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductreasoning

    The methodology yields actual, as opposed to estimated, shrink rates and provides accurate tracking of shrink trends across fresh produce categories.

    “This methodology yields actual, as opposed to estimated, shrink rates and provides accurate tracking of shrink trends across fresh produce categories.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductreasoning

    The supermarket retailers ultimately included in the data portion of this study were five large national and regional food retail chains located in all four U.S. regions-East, South, Central, and West-to allow for a geographically-representative sample.

    “The supermarket retailers ultimately included in the data portion of this study were five large national and regional food retail chains located in all four U.S. regions-East, South, Central, and West-to allow for a geographically-representative sample.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductreasoning

    The study was unable to validate its estimates against data from most other related peer-reviewed studies, with one exception being Buzby et al. (forthcoming), which will compare the estimates presented here with previous 2005-2006 estimates from Buzby et al.

    “Consequently, we are unable to validate our estimates against data from most of the other related peer-reviewed studies.One exception is Buzby et al. (forthcoming) [33], which will compare the estimates presented here with the previous estimates for 2005-2006 from Buzby et al. [8].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [33] Buzby, J.C., Wells, H.F., Axtman, B., and Mickey, J. Updated Supermarket Shrink Estimates for Fresh Fruit, Vegetables, Meat, Poultry, and Seafood in the United States and Their Use as Food Loss Assumptions in the ERS Loss-Adjusted Food Availability Data.

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [8] Buzby, J.C., Wells, H.F., Axtman, B., and Mickey, J. (2009). Supermarket Loss Estimates for Fresh Fruit, Vegetables, Meat, Poultry, and Seafood and their Use in the ERS Loss-Adjusted Food Availability Data.

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    These estimates are in line with the typical range of 10 to 50 percent papaya shrink in the literature with losses up to 80 percent for some shipments.

    “These estimates are in line with the typical range of 10 to 50 percent papaya shrink in the literature with losses up to 80 percent for some shipments [1].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [1] Paull, 1997, Postharvest handling and losses during marketing of papaya (Carica papaya L.), Postharvest Biol. Technol. source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Lebersorger and Schneider estimate that food loss accounts for 4.2 percent of sales of fruits and vegetables in retail outlets in Austria.

    “Lebersorger and Schneider [32] estimate that food loss accounts for 4.2 percent of sales of fruits and vegetables in retail outlets in Austria.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [32] Lebersorger, 2014, Food loss rates at the food retail, influencing factors and reasons as a basis for waste prevention measures, Waste Manag. source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductnone given

    After cleaning the data, Nielsen Perishables Group processed the data to meet internal sales data quality standards across all retailer data sets included in the study.

    “After cleaning the data, Nielsen Perishables Group processed the data to meet internal sales data quality standards across all retailer data sets included in the study.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Eriksson et al. estimated that in six Swedish retail stores, fruit and vegetables wasted in relation to quantities delivered was 4.3 percent by mass.

    “Meanwhile Eriksson et al. [31] estimated that in six Swedish retail stores, fruit and vegetables wasted in relation to quantities delivered was 4.3 percent by mass.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [31] Eriksson, 2012, Food losses in six Swedish retail stores: Wastage of fruit and vegetables in relation to quantities delivered, Resour. Conserv. Recycl. source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Beretta et al. reported that less than 1 percent (0.35 to 0.44 percent) of delivered product are lost due to transportation damage, spoilage, and unsatisfactory quality.

    “They also report that less than 1 percent (0.35 to 0.44 percent) of delivered product are lost due to transportation damage, spoilage, and unsatisfactory quality”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [17] Beretta, 2013, Quantifying food losses and the potential for reduction in Switzerland, Waste Manag. source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationreasoning

    Anomalous data points were primarily driven by the accuracy of the retailer's internal tracking systems for procurement.

    “Anomalous data points were primarily driven by the accuracy of the retailer's internal tracking systems for procurement.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationreasoning

    The 1-percentage point difference in fresh fruit shrink between 2011 and 2012 is reasonable given year to year fluctuations in demand and supply of individual commodities.

    “This 1-percentage point difference is reasonable given year to year fluctuations in demand and supply of individual commodities.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductnone given

    The shipment data was cleaned and validated for accuracy at the item-level by each retailer.

    “The shipment data was cleaned and validated for accuracy at the item-level by each retailer.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductnone given

    The sample size was limited by the number of stores providing shipment data, not by the number of retail store coverage in the point-of-sale data.

    “The sample size was limited by the number of stores providing shipment data, not by the number of retail store coverage in the point-of-sale data.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    The FMI and Retail Control Group estimated that 64 percent of shrink in 2012 was caused by operational breakdowns.

    “estimate that 64 percent of shrink in 2012 was caused by operational breakdowns”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [2] Where’s My Shrink: Executive Summary Executive Summary Produced in Conjunction with Food Marketing Institute (FMI) and the Retail Control Group Report. Available online: http://wheresmyshrink.com/executivesummary.html.

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductreasoning

    Due to data limitations on the entire food sales market, the authors do not have an estimate of how much of the entire market is covered by the Nielsen Perishables Group proprietary FreshFacts® point-of-sale database or how much is covered by the sample of stores for the shipment and point-of-sales data pairings.

    “Due to data limitations on the entire food sales market, we do not have an estimate of how much of the entire market is covered by the Nielsen Perishables Group proprietary FreshFacts ® point-of-sale database or how much is covered by the sample of stores for the shipment and point-of-sales data pairings.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Gustavsson and Stage provide retail-level waste estimates for 16 popular fruits and vegetables in Sweden as a percent of sales, and found that small stores are more prone to higher produce waste than larger stores.

    “Gustavsson and Stage [27] provide retail-level waste estimates for 16 popular fruits and vegetables in Sweden as a percent of sales, and found that small stores are more prone to higher produce waste than larger stores.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [27] Gustavsson, 2011, Retail waste of horticultural products in Sweden, Resour. Conserv. Recycl. source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    The BSR study data were extrapolated from 10 retailers and 3 wholesalers, representing 30 percent of those U.S. industries by revenue.

    “Data in the study is extrapolated from 10 retailers and 3 wholesalers, representing 30 percent of those U.S. industries by revenue.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [12] BSR (2013). Food Waste among Food Manufactures, Retailers, and Wholesalers, BSR. Prepared for the Food Waste Reduction Alliance.

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductnone given

    Data cleaning criteria included aligning weekly sales and procurement receipts for the time period for each individual item sold, and identifying and removing anomalous data points (i.e., shrink levels above 80 percent or below zero).

    “Data cleaning criteria included aligning weekly sales and procurement receipts for the time period for each individual item sold, and identifying and removing anomalous data points (i.e., shrink levels above 80 percent or below zero).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductnone given

    The FreshFacts point-of-sale database does not include independent grocers, convenience stores, mom-and-pop grocers, and certain retail chains, such as Whole Foods, Trader Joe's, Aldi, Costco, HEB, and Hy-Vee.

    “The database does not include independent grocers, convenience stores, mom-and-pop grocers, and certain retail chains, such as: Whole Foods, Trader Joe's, Aldi, Costco, HEB, and Hy-Vee (please note this list is not inclusive of all excluded retailers).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Store policies that require the retail chain to carry a range of produce even when sales are minimal may explain some papaya loss.

    “Additionally, store policies that require the retail chain to carry a range of produce even when sales are minimal may explain some papaya loss [1].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [1] Paull, 1997, Postharvest handling and losses during marketing of papaya (Carica papaya L.), Postharvest Biol. Technol. source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Mena et al. provide estimates for retail loss and waste as a percent of total weight for 11 select fruits and vegetables categories in the United Kingdom, ranging from 0.5-1 percent for onions to 2.5-5 percent for avocadoes.

    “Mena et al. [24] provide estimates for 'retail loss and waste' as a percent of total weight for 11 select fruits and vegetables categories in the United Kingdom, ranging from 0.5-1 percent for onions to 2.5-5 percent for avocadoes.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [24] Mena, 2014, Causes of waste across multi-tier supply networks: Cases in the UK food sector, Int. J. Prod. Econ. source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisenone given

    The shrink for produce departments was the second-highest shrink by department (after the meat department), contributing to 16 percent of total store shrink.

    “The shrink for produce departments was the second-highest shrink by department (after the meat department) contributing to 16 percent of total store shrink.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    The BSR study does not provide information for individual commodities and does not provide information for retailers separately.

    “The study does not provide information for individual commodities and does not provide information for retailers separately [12].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [12] BSR (2013). Food Waste among Food Manufactures, Retailers, and Wholesalers, BSR. Prepared for the Food Waste Reduction Alliance.

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Beretta et al. estimated that in Switzerland, fruit and vegetable losses in retail stores comprised 8 to 9 percent by calorific content.

    “Beretta et al. [17] (p.770) estimated that in Switzerland, fruit and vegetable losses in retail stores comprised 8 to 9 percent by calorific content.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [17] Beretta, 2013, Quantifying food losses and the potential for reduction in Switzerland, Waste Manag. source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    The FMI and Retail Control Group estimated that 36 percent of shrink in 2012 was caused by theft and misdeeds.

    “and 36 percent was caused by theft and misdeeds [2].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [2] Where’s My Shrink: Executive Summary Executive Summary Produced in Conjunction with Food Marketing Institute (FMI) and the Retail Control Group Report. Available online: http://wheresmyshrink.com/executivesummary.html.

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Interpretationreasoning

    This high loss for papaya may be partly due to consumers' lack of knowledge of when papaya is ripe, how to prepare it, and how to use it as an ingredient.

    “This high loss for papaya may be partly due to consumers' lack of knowledge of when papaya is ripe, how to prepare it, and how to use it as an ingredient.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Leafy greens are relatively more prone to moisture loss than many other types of produce and this likely contributes to higher shrink.

    “Leafy greens are relatively more prone to moisture loss than many other types of produce and this likely contributes to higher shrink.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationreasoning

    The high shrink for fresh greens can be partly based on the lack of high-quality packaging.

    “Additionally, the high shrink for fresh greens can be partly based on the lack of high-quality packaging.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Fresh greens are typically sold in bunches and are not protected by packaging.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation

    The reason these differ from the top three fresh fruits in terms of percent shrink (papaya, pineapple, apricots) is the relative weights of the fruit, their relative importance to U.S. consumption, and perhaps the relative price per pound.

    “The reason these differ from the top three fresh fruits in terms of the percent shrink (i.e., papaya, pineapple, and apricots) is the relative weights of the fruit (e.g., watermelon are heavy), their relative importance to U.S. consumption (e.g., apples are one of America's most popular fruits), and perhaps the relative price per pound (e.g., fresh apricot prices are on the higher end of the price”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [38] ERS (2015). Fruit and Vegetable Prices, Economic Research Service.

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisenone given

    The estimates presented here are much higher than 4.3 percent of fruits and vegetables by mass reported in Eriksson et al. [31] in six Swedish retail stores and slightly higher than the 2005-2006 estimates in Buzby et al. [8].

    “The estimates presented here are much higher than 4.3 percent of fruits and vegetables by mass reported in Eriksson et al. [31] in six Swedish retail stores and slightly higher than the 2005-2006 estimates in Buzby et al. [8].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [31] Eriksson, 2012, Food losses in six Swedish retail stores: Wastage of fruit and vegetables in relation to quantities delivered, Resour. Conserv. Recycl. source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [8] Buzby, J.C., Wells, H.F., Axtman, B., and Mickey, J. (2009). Supermarket Loss Estimates for Fresh Fruit, Vegetables, Meat, Poultry, and Seafood and their Use in the ERS Loss-Adjusted Food Availability Data.

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    The estimate for strawberries in the United Kingdom was 2 to 4 percent compared to 14.2 percent in the current study for strawberries in the United States.

    “For example, the estimate for strawberries in the United Kingdom was 2 to 4 percent compared to 14.2 percent in the current study for strawberries in the United States.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [24] Mena, 2014, Causes of waste across multi-tier supply networks: Cases in the UK food sector, Int. J. Prod. Econ. source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    A general lack of consumer knowledge about some of these products and their preparation (e.g., how to cook collard greens) may make some consumers hesitant to purchase collard greens and this could contribute to these high shrink estimates.

    “A general lack of consumer knowledge about some of these products and their preparation (e.g., how to cook collard greens) may make some consumers hesitant to purchase collard greens and this could contribute to these high shrink estimates.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Interpretationnone given

    The estimates are not directly comparable to those based on the percent of sales or calories.

    “The estimates are not directly comparable to those based on the percent of sales or calories.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationnone given

    More information on shrink and food loss rates and amounts for particular foods provides information on potential areas to target for shrink and food loss reductions but it does not provide information on what loss-reducing strategies to take or the underlying causes.

    “Of course, more information on shrink and food loss rates and amounts for particular foods provides information on potential areas to target for shrink and food loss reductions but it does not provide information on what loss-reducing strategies to take or the underlying causes.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Peach quality often varies from year to year based on crop conditions and increased peach shrink could be due to a lower quality crop in one of the years.

    “Peach quality often varies from year to year based on crop conditions and increased peach shrink could be due to a lower quality crop in one of the years.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
51 of 51

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Reliable U.S. food loss data for each fresh fruit and vegetable in LAFA at the retail level is not available.

    “Reliable U.S. food loss data for each fresh fruit and vegetable in LAFA at the retail level is not available and thus supermarket shrink for these commodities is used as a proxy.”

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    Food loss is a large component of supermarket shrink for fresh fruits and vegetables, and supermarket shrink for fresh produce is an adequate proxy for food loss of fresh produce items at the retail level.

    “Given the perishable nature of fresh fruits and vegetables, we presume that food loss is a large component of supermarket shrink for these items and that supermarket shrink for fresh produce is an adequate proxy for food loss of fresh produce items at the retail level.”

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    The estimated shrink rate equals the actual food loss rate for each fresh fruit and vegetable.

    “It is important to note that here, like in Buzby et al. [8], we are assuming that the estimated shrink rate equals the actual food loss rate for each fresh fruit and vegetable.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Fresh greens are typically sold in bunches and are not protected by packaging.

    “These products are typically sold in bunches and are not protected by packaging.”
4 of 4

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • In U.S. supermarkets, the percentage of fresh produce delivered that was not sold for any reason ranged from 2.2 percent for sweet corn to 62.9 percent for turnip greens; the range for fruits was smaller, from 4.1 percent for bananas to 43.1 percent for papaya.

    “Buzby et al. (2015) found that in U.S. supermarkets, the percentage of fresh produce delivered to U.S. supermarkets that was not sold for any reason ranged from 2.2 (sweet corn) to 62.9 (turnip greens) percent; the range for fruits was smaller, ranging from 4.1 (bananas) to 43.1 (papaya) percent.”

    From Drivers of food waste and their implications for sustainable policy development (2016) · cites this paper as Buzby et al. (2015)

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

  • Fresh-fruit retail-weight total does not sum to its rows

    Major

    The 24 fresh-fruit retail weights sum to 39,026 million pounds, not the reported 9,028 million pounds.

    Reported 9028 · recomputed 39026

  • Abstract calls the uneaten whole-vegetable amount food loss

    Minor

    The abstract reports 6.1 billion pounds as vegetable food loss, whereas the results identify that as uneaten whole vegetables. They report edible vegetable food loss as 5 billion pounds.

  • Pineapple is not third in edible fruit loss

    Minor

    The text ranks pineapple third, but Table 1 reports 315 million pounds of edible pineapple loss and 352 million pounds for oranges. Oranges rank ahead of pineapple.

  • Abstract calls the uneaten whole-fruit amount food loss

    Minor

    The abstract reports 5.9 billion pounds as fruit food loss, but the results identify that as uneaten fruit including nonedible portions. They report edible fruit food loss as 4.2 billion pounds.

4 of 4

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

3 of the 30 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Ziegler, G., and Floros, J.D. A Future Perspective to Mitigate Food Losses: The Role of Food Science and Technology. Proceedings of the IFT 2011 Annual Meeting & Food Expo, New Orleans, LA, USA.
  2. Vigneault, 2009, Transportation of fresh horticultural produce, Postharvest Technol. Hortic. Crops, 2, 1
  3. Golan, 2015, Innovating to meet the challenge of food waste, Food Technol., 69, 20

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Buzby, J., Bentley, J., Padera, B., Ammon, C., & Campuzano, J.
Affiliations
  • Economic Research Service (US)
  • MobiSave, 712 5th Avenue, 14th Floor, New York, NY 10019, USA
  • Beacon Research Solutions, 4556 N. Beacon St. No. 3, Chicago, IL 60640, USA
  • Nielsen (United States) (US)
Corresponding author
Buzby, Jean
ORCID
Buzby, Jean
Venue
Agriculture
Publisher
MDPI AG
Published
2015-08-04
Volume
5
Issue
3
Pages
626-648
ISSN
2077-0472 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.3390/agriculture5030626
OpenAlex
W1579549752
Semantic Scholar
3e23901bacbabccb60167b0c776b7079426ece52
Cited by
59
References
30
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 1
FWCI
4.45
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Agriculture (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
  • U.S. Department of Agriculture
  • Economic Research Service
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Food Science › Food Waste Reduction and Sustainability
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Plant Science › Postharvest Quality and Shelf Life Management
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Agriculture Sustainability and Environmental Impact
Keywords
food loss, supermarkets, fresh fruits, fresh vegetables, food availability, point-of-sale data, food loss reduction

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-10-10.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-10.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review