**Author details**

Monica Gori1 \*, Maria Bianca Amadeo1,2, Giulio Sandini3 and Claudio Campus1

1 Unit for Visually Impaired People, Italian Institute of Technology, Genova, Italy

2 Department of Informatics, Bioengineering, Robotics and Systems Engineering, Università degli Studi di Genova, Genova, Italy

3 Robotics, Brain and Cognitive Sciences Department, Italian Institute of Technology, Genova, Italy

\*Address all correspondence to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
© 2019 The Author(s). Licensee IntechOpen. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.


3.2.4. Technology and Supply Chain Length

Counterintuitively, extension officer 2 and the ex-wholesale agent both viewed technology as a driver of postharvest loss, specifically packing shed mechanisation. Technologies such as laser colour graders have enabled growers to consistently produce uniform product that conforms with stringent specifications escalating volumes of out-graded product. While transport distance was not considered a contributor to postharvest loss, behavioural practices of supply chain actors were, with retailer 1 commenting, *"You could have two people in the chain, and if one of them doesn't care about how he handles the fruit, you're going to have [postharvest loss]"*.

## **4. Discussion**

Postharvest loss in the two commercial tomato supply chains assessed in this case study was between 40.3% (55.34 t) and 55.9% (29.61 t). The highest incidence of postharvest loss occurred at the harvesting and grading stages of the supply chains, including field and packing shed losses, accounting for between 90.3% and 97.5% of overall losses. The lowest incidence of postharvest loss occurred after the farm-gate, accounting for between 2.5% and 9.7% of overall losses. Retail losses were 2.4% and 5.4%, with the highest incidence in SC1, which was the longer (by distance and time) of the two supply chains. Destination of loss was predominantly to land application, due to the high incidence of point-of-harvest field loss. It is difficult to contextualise these findings due to few comparable horticultural FLW studies of technology-dense supply chains, with no previous FLW assessment of tomato supply chains in developed counties identified in the literature. In an older study Parfitt et al. [31] reported postharvest losses in tomatoes of 18% to 43% in Egypt. Underhill and Kumar [45], in an assessment of smallholder farmer tomato supply chains in Fiji, found destination losses of 60.8%, whereas a Cambodian study found losses between 22.5% and 23% in a comparative study between traditional and modern supply chains [47]. None of these studies assessed in-field point-of-harvest losses, so it is difficult to draw a meaningful conclusion as to relative postharvest losses observed in the two supply chains. Given the importance of global tomato production [48], the apparent dearth of previous FLW tomato studies, especially pertaining to developed countries, is interesting. In comparison to global FLW loss, where it is widely accepted that one-third of total agricultural production is lost or wasted along current food supply chains [27], the level of FLW within the two Bundaberg tomato chains appears to be comparatively high.

The finding that loss was concentrated at the primary production end of the chain is consistent with a study [27] of FLW in North America and Oceania, where 26% of FLW was attributed to the primary production level and 12% to the distribution and retail stages [27]. However, the present results are inconsistent with Lipinski et al. [24] who reported 24% of total production was lost at the point of production, and another 24% during transport and storage, and Griffin et al. [42] who found losses of 20% at primary production, 1% during processing and 19% during distribution. An American report described losses of 15% to 35% at the production stage and 27% at the retail level [30]. While much of the current literature advocates equal losses between the retail and primary production ends of the supply chain, the omission or limited inclusion of point-of-harvest loss would appear to have resulted in proportionally higher losses elsewhere along the chain. Results in this study were consistent with the consensus that horticultural commodities experience comparatively higher FLW than most other commodities, with FLW at around 50% of total production [28,36,39,49]. Postharvest losses in our study exceeded findings of a synthesis report [49] indicating horticultural postharvest losses in a developed country between 2% and 23% at the production end, dependent on horticultural commodity. However, our study was more consistent with an Iranian study [50] finding postharvest losses in strawberries of 35% to 40% and a study from the United Kingdom [39] stating that characteristic

losses for fresh vegetables could be as high as 50% in the primary production stages of a fresh food supply chain.

Few studies of FLW have sought to quantify and segregate destination of losses [28,29,39,42]. Noting the exclusion of in-field point-of-harvest losses in quantifying FLW in those studies, it is not surprising that landfill, rather than land application, is the predominant destination of loss.

High levels of FLW are immanent to horticultural production systems of developed countries, driven by fierce competition and financial incentives that have crafted the current 'business model' that favours wasteful practices [2,28,35,39]. Edible products are being removed from the commercial food supply chain as outgrades deemed cosmetically defective [31]. Private standards, prescribing 'perfect' product ensure high levels of FLW, inducing consumer intolerance of 'substandard' product and impacting purchasing behaviour [3,22,28,37]. Extension officer 2 broached the subject of consumer demand and the implications of those at the primary production level. Among consumers in developed countries, there was limited understanding around the implications and prevention of waste, [3,6,22,25,31,37,38] perpetuated by supermarkets who showcase only premium, unblemished product fabricating unrealistic expectations of how fruit and vegetables should appear.

The quantification of FLW in the context of high-technology production systems in developed countries has received relatively little attention. The premise that developed countries operate highly efficient agricultural systems optimising FLW minimisation [31,41], may in part explain this situation. Central to this view is a pre-occupation with consumer waste [6] in affluent populations as the largest and most visible portion of FLW [31,35] and that, given the inherent difficulty in changing human behaviour [24], no significant or further FLW reductions can be achieved [51]. In this study, to the contrary, the highest postharvest losses occurred at the primary production end of the chain. Discussions with industry experts revealed the potential role of technology, particularly packing shed mechanisation, in driving high levels of FLW due to uniformity of product in the sorting and grading processes. Contributing factors of FLW observed in the two tomato chains in the study were not due to poor postharvest or storage practices, or transport distance, but rather a series of commercial decisions. The most apparent driver was the cost-benefit of harvesting, based on market price, supply volume, and perceptions of retailer and consumer purchasing behaviour, which effectively made high levels of loss an economically acceptable outcome. The supply chain actors were both aware of the extent of loss and had strong and consistent views as to these key contributors. With only 44.1% and 59.7% of harvestable crop reaching the consumers of the two supply chains assessed, perhaps there should be discussion of a food "waste" chain as opposed to a food "supply" chain.

## **5. Conclusions**

This study sought to quantify postharvest losses associated with a highly-mechanised enterprise to determine drivers of FLW independent of postharvest handling practices. The storage conditions observed for the packaged and ripening fruit along both chains were unlikely to have had any adverse effect on product shelf life or have been a contributor to postharvest loss [52,53]. In the context of the supply chains assessed, this study has demonstrated that postharvest loss is due to the deliberate and informed actions of supply chain actors, dictated predominantly by private food standards and market value rather than a lack of access to appropriate postharvest handling infrastructure. Stringent product specifications enforced via private food standards due to the combination of asymmetric supermarket business practices and consumer purchasing behaviour are considered by the supply chain actors to be the fundamental cause of high FLW. Given the notable lack of research on food loss and waste in developed countries, the results of this paper necessitate a greater research effort, particularly at the production end of the food supply chain.

**Acknowledgments:** Funding and support provided by the University of the Sunshine Coast is acknowledged. Local knowledge and advice provided by the Bundaberg Fruit and Vegetable Growers Association and all actors of the case-study supply chains is gratefully acknowledged.

**Author Contributions:** Tara J. McKenzie, Lila Singh-Peterson and Steven J. R. Underhill conceived and designed the experiments; Tara J. McKenzie performed the experiments and analysed the data; Steven J. R. Underhill contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools; Tara J. McKenzie wrote the paper, with editorial assistance from Lila Singh-Peterson and Steven J. R. Underhill.

**Conflicts of Interest:** The authors declare no conflict of interest. The founding sponsor had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, and in the decision to publish the results.


Meet the editor

Freddie Inambao obtained his MSc in 1981 and Ph.D. in 1985. He is a professor at the University of KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa, and an advisor to the university's Green Energy Solutions Research Group. His fields of expertise are sustainable energy, energy management, alternative energy systems, energy efficiency, fuels, nanomaterials, and biomaterials. Professor Inambao's research is quite diverse, focusing on, but not exclu-

sively, the energy efficiency of commercial and industrial buildings, piezoelectric materials (PZT) power generation, low-temperature solar thermal energy conversion, combustion of fossil fuels and renewable fuels, and water desalination. Professor Inambao has authored sixteen books. He also has more than 210 research publications to his credit.