Exploring Dutch consumer practices and preferences regarding purchase, storage and packaging of fresh fruits and vegetables Open Access

Plastic packaging can help reduce food waste during transport and in stores, but it is unclear whether it also helps prevent waste at home. In this study, we asked nearly 300 Dutch consumers about how they buy, store and think about packaging for fresh fruits and vegetables.

Many people prefer less plastic and would rather choose paper, cardboard or no packaging at all. However, the options available in shops often do not match these preferences. In addition, many consumers are unaware that plastic packaging can sometimes help keep produce fresh for longer.

Storage practices also vary widely. People choose where to store fruits and vegetables based on different reasons, which are not always related to extending shelf life. For example, some keep items in plain sight to remember to eat them. These choices can lead to more food being wasted.

Providing consumers with better information on how to store fresh produce could help reduce household food waste. At the same time, retailers and producers can improve packaging designs to better match what consumers want and need. This way, it may be possible to reduce plastic use without increasing food waste.

Food waste constitutes a complex global challenge, imposing negative impacts across economic, environmental and social dimensions (Aschemann-Witzel et al., 2015; Devin and Richards, 2018; Stenmarck et al., 2016). Globally, one-fourth to one-third of the total food production is lost or wasted along the supply chain (FAO, 2011; Kummu et al., 2012). It has been estimated that within the European Union around 88 million tonnes of food is wasted annually, equating to 170–180 kg per EU citizen along the supply chain (Stenmarck et al., 2016). The financial impact of this waste is substantial, with costs estimated at 143 billion euros annually across the European Union. Fresh fruits and vegetables make up a significant proportion of this total, with 54% of the avoidable food waste attributed to these products (Blanke, 2015). Due to the considerable reliance on greenhouses, refrigeration and transportation in fresh produce production, reducing food waste in this food category offers potential to contribute positively to environmental sustainability.

Throughout the food supply chain, packaging is used to reduce food waste. It provides containment and protection for fresh produce, while also offering convenience and communicating essential information to consumers (Risch, 2009, Watkins, 2017). By safeguarding products from physical and mechanical damage during handling and transportation, packaging helps maintain quality and prevents spoilage (Brown et al., 2011). It plays a vital role in extending the shelf life of the contained product (Marsh and Bugusu, 2007), thereby contributing to waste reduction at various stages of the supply chain (White and Lockyer, 2020). For instance, plastic packaging can increase the relative humidity around fresh produce due to its barrier properties, thereby minimising water loss (Lufu et al., 2020, WRAP (Waste & Resource Action Programme), 2008b, 2018). Limiting this phenomenon can prolong product shelf life, as these foods are susceptible to water loss, which leads to skin shrivelling and a loss of flavour and texture (Lufu et al., 2020). Selecting the right type of packaging is therefore important to ensure optimum shelf life, as different types of packaging impact produce quality differently (e.g. Shrivastava et al., 2023). Although the use of plastic has an impact on the environment, it is crucial to highlight that plastic packaging can reduce the overall environmental impact of food products when it prevents them from being wasted (Lockrey et al., 2019; Quested et al., 2011; Williams and Wikström, 2011). A meta-analysis of the environmental effects of food packaging shows that less than 10% of a food product's total life cycle emissions are due to plastic packaging (Kan and Miller, 2022). Especially when the environmental impact of the food is high, as in the case of perishable foods such as fruits and vegetables, the use of plastic packaging is highly beneficial. For example, plastic wrapping for cucumbers can have a net positive environmental effect, as its role in reducing spoilage-related food waste is larger than the environmental impact of the additional plastic use (Shrivastava et al., 2022). Although packaging plays a key role in maintaining product quality, extending shelf life and reducing food waste, consumers often have a limited understanding of the sustainability of packaging materials (Fernqvist et al., 2015; Lindh et al., 2016; Nguyen et al., 2020; Norton et al., 2022).

While plastic wrapping can play a crucial role in reducing food waste during the initial stages of the supply chain, its impact on food waste at later stages, particularly within households, remains unclear. Considering that approximately 40–60% of all European food waste originates from households (Blanke, 2015; European Commission, 2011; Stenmarck et al., 2016), it is vital to identify effective strategies to minimise waste at this level. The fact that such a large proportion of food waste occurs at the end of the supply chain magnifies its environmental and economic impact (Beretta et al., 2017). Resources such as labour, energy and packaging materials accumulate throughout the supply chain, amplifying the impact of waste at this stage compared to earlier ones (Jellil et al., 2018; Stenmarck et al., 2016). Importantly, it has been estimated that up to 80% of household food waste is avoidable (Edjabou et al., 2016; Vanham et al., 2015), highlighting the potential for significant improvements. Of the substantial volume of food wasted in domestic settings, approximately half consists of fresh fruits and vegetables (Caldeira et al., 2019; De Laurentiis et al., 2018; Edjabou et al., 2016; Vanham et al., 2015). In the Netherlands specifically, around 30% of avoidable food waste consists of fresh fruits and vegetables, with apples, oranges, carrots, bananas and cucumbers being wasted most frequently (CREM Waste Management, 2017). However, studying domestic food waste is challenging as the generation of food waste is not an intended behaviour. Instead, it arises as an unintended outcome of various interconnected actions, including planning, purchase, storage, preparation and consumption of food (Aschemann-Witzel et al., 2015; Evans, 2011; Quested et al., 2011). For instance, consumers with poor food management skills have been shown to generate more food waste (Karunasena et al., 2021). Improper storage practices, such as unorganised storage (Farr-Wharton et al., 2014) or refrigerator temperatures exceeding recommend maximum temperature (Marklinder et al., 2004; Terpstra et al., 2005), can also contribute to food waste. Furthermore, different types of fruits and vegetables require specific storage methods (van Holsteijn and Kemna, 2018), yet consumers may not always use the appropriate method for each product (Aschemann-Witzel et al., 2015).

It is therefore crucial to study consumer habits regarding the purchase and storage of fresh produce, as well as their handling of packaging at home, since these practices influence product quality and thereby the likelihood of food being discarded. In addition, preferences for food packaging are relevant to examine because packaging can shape food choice through its effects on perceived quality (Koutsimanis et al., 2012; Nørgaard Olesen and Giacalone, 2018), convenience (Silayoi and Speece, 2007) and portion size (Koutsimanis et al., 2012). Consumer perceptions of plastic packaging have shifted significantly in recent years, which is expected to be driven by growing awareness of terrestrial and marine plastic pollution (Otto et al., 2021). This negative perception (Fernqvist et al., 2015; Langley et al., 2021; Lindh et al., 2016) has led to an increased preference for unpackaged foods (De Salvo et al., 2020; Herrmann et al., 2022; Lehberger et al., 2024; Piracci et al., 2023; van Herpen et al., 2016; Yanik et al., 2020). Depending on the behavioural paradigm consumers follow, these preferences may stem from the ability to select the desired quality and quantity of products (Random Utility Maximisation, RUM), or from an effort to minimise regret associated with the environmental impact of packaging (Random Regret Minimisation, RRM) (Piracci et al., 2023). However, it remains unclear how this shift in perceptions translates into actual consumer practices, and consumer behaviours related to packaging and their potential contribution to food waste remain largely unexplored (Brennan et al., 2021). Therefore, this study aims to examine the practices and preferences of Dutch consumers regarding the purchase and storage of fresh fruits and vegetables. Through an online survey, the study explores how consumers make decisions when purchasing fresh produce, the storage locations they choose for it and their reasons, as well as their handling of packaging and factors influencing the disposal of fresh produce.

An online survey was designed in Qualtrics (Qualtrics, Provo, UT, USA) to assess consumer practices related to the purchase, storage, and disposal of fresh fruits and vegetables, as well as perceptions and preferences regarding packaging. Data was collected between May and July 2024. The survey questions and response options were based on prior qualitative research, in which participants completed a 9-day photo diary of their purchase and storage practices for fresh produce, followed by a semi-structured interview (n = 27; results not presented here).

The survey consisted of several sections. The first section collected demographic information, including age, gender, household composition and postal code (first four digits). Subsequent sections addressed grocery shopping habits, the types of fresh fruits (10 categories) and vegetables (23 categories) participants regularly keep at home, and the storage locations used within their household. Based on participants' selections, only the relevant questions about those products and storage locations were displayed. These questions covered the specific storage location for each product, reasons for selecting these locations and current and preferred packaging options for each product category. The final section addressed the frequency of fresh produce disposal, willingness to compromise for plastic-free produce and the perceived effect of plastic packaging on the shelf life of fresh produce.

Respondents were recruited through posters and social media. To be eligible for participation, respondents needed to be at least 18 years old and residing in the Netherlands. Those sharing a kitchen with non-household members (e.g. student houses), never being responsible for doing the groceries or never being responsible for unpacking and storing the groceries were also excluded from further participation in the survey. For every 100 responses, five €20 gift vouchers were awarded to participants who had expressed interest in being entered into the prize draw.

A declaration of consent was presented at the start of the survey, outlining the study's aim as well as how the data would be handled and stored. By proceeding with the survey, participants provided their consent to the outlined data management and storage practices. The study was part of a project proposal that received ethical approval from the Social Sciences Ethics Committee from Wageningen University (2023-2-Blok).

Data were exported from Qualtrics software and reported as averages with standard deviations or frequencies and percentages. Chi-square tests were conducted in RStudio (R version 4.4.1) to examine statistically significant differences in category distributions. Post-hoc pairwise comparisons were performed with Bonferroni adjustment to identify specific differences. Binomial logistic regression was used to examine whether demographic variables (gender, age and household composition) predicted respondents' packaging-related storage behaviour. Ordinal logistic regression (MASS package) was used to examine whether the same demographic variables influenced respondents' willingness to make sacrifices for plastic-free produce, and their perception of the effect of plastic packaging on produce shelf life. Statistical tests were conducted using a significance level α = 0.05.

A total of 290 respondents successfully completed the survey (Table 1). Responses were collected across the country, with respondents from every province of the Netherlands. Although the sample was not nationally representative, it was diverse across a range of characteristics including age, household composition and area of residence (Table 1). The age of respondents ranged between 18 and 82 years, with a mean age of 43.0 ± 16.8 years. Moreover, there was a spread in urbanity, with responses coming from areas with varying degrees of urbanisation.

The majority of respondents purchase fresh produce multiple times a week: 78% of respondents purchase fresh produce at least 2 times a week (Table 2). One-fifth of respondents buy fresh fruits and vegetables once a week, while only 1% does so less than once a week. Regarding the point of purchase, almost all respondents indicated visiting the supermarket to purchase fresh produce (94%). Around a quarter of the respondents visit the market (27%) or the greengrocer (23%) to get fresh produce, while eighteen percent of respondents (occasionally) purchase fresh fruits and vegetables through an online retail store. Sixteen percent of respondents reported harvesting their own fruits and/or vegetables, for example from their garden.

When purchasing fresh fruits and vegetables, the quality, price and quantity of produce are clearly the top priorities for Dutch consumers. For forty percent of respondents, the origin of the produce is a key consideration during grocery shopping, whereas only 22% pay attention to the packaging material.

Of the 23 categories of vegetables, 6 categories were purchased by at least 90% of the respondents: tomatoes, onion, bell pepper, cucumber, lettuce and zucchini (Table 3). For fruits, 3 out of 10 categories were purchased regularly by at least 90% of participants: apple, banana and citrus fruits.

Respondents were asked about a) the most common type of packaging for each type of fresh produce they regularly purchase and b) the type of packaging they would ideally like to see on these items (Table 3). According to the survey results, some fruits and vegetables are currently mainly offered in one type of packaging, for example mesh bags (garlic, onions and citrus fruits) or plastic packaging (broccoli, Brussels sprouts, fresh beans, lettuce, mushrooms, potatoes, pre-cut vegetables, spinach, berries and grapes). On the other hand, some types of fresh produce are predominantly offered packaging-free at the point-of-purchase (i.e. avocado, cauliflower, leek, pumpkin, zucchini, banana, kaki and tropical fruits). For unpackaged fresh produce, the current way of packaging is typically in line with consumer preferences.

Some products are predominantly available in two formats: either packaged in plastic or plastic-free. These include bell pepper, carrot, chicory, cucumber, eggplant and stone fruits. Respondents generally showed a strong preference for purchasing these items plastic-free. In contrast, some categories of fresh produce are offered in various types of packaging, such as beets, cabbages, tomatoes, apples, kiwis and pears. The types of packaging typically used include shrink-wrap, plastic bags, punnets, tray and film packs, and several of these products are also offered packaging-free.

Consumer packaging preferences are in line with current offerings for those products that are mainly sold packaging-free, and some items that are exclusively offered in plastic bags (i.e. pre-cut vegetables and spinach). For those products that are primarily offered in mesh bags, consumers preferred buying these without any packaging. Notably, respondents showed a clear preference for purchasing most fruits packaging-free, berries and grapes being the only exceptions. The list of products for which the current ways of offering clearly do not coincide with consumer preferences is extensive (i.e. fresh beans, bell pepper, broccoli, Brussels sprouts, carrot, chicory, cucumber, mushrooms, potatoes, tomato, apple, pear and stone fruits). In general, consumers would rather see these items in paper or cardboard packaging, or not packaged at all.

Respondents were asked for their opinion on six statements regarding the sacrifices they are willing to make in order to purchase fresh produce without plastic packaging (Figure 1). Especially for compromising on convenience and limiting the availability of fresh produce there is strong support from Dutch consumers, as more than 75% of respondents either agree or strongly agree with these statements. In contrast, opinions were more divided on other statements, with roughly equal proportions of respondents in favour and against the statement. Respondents were least supportive of a price increase to ensure plastic-free produce offerings or of spending more time on their grocery shopping. Small differences emerged across demographical groups. Older respondents were more willing to spend additional time on grocery shopping (p = 0.006), but were less inclined to compromise on convenience (p = 0.0077). Women were also willing to spend extra time on grocery shopping to obtain plastic-free produce (p = 0.016). Households with children were less willing to accept a shorter shelf life of produce (p = 0.0249).

Respondents use multiple locations to store fresh produce in their homes, the refrigerator and open storage locations being used by almost all respondents (99 and 92%, respectively) (Table 4). In this study open storage locations were defined as storage locations at room temperature exposed to daylight, including the counter, fruit basket, windowsill and open cupboards. Closed storage locations were used by 46% of the respondents and were defined as being dark locations at room temperature, such as closed cupboards, drawers and pantries. Less frequently used were the utility room, garage or shed (26%) and the basement (11%).

For certain categories of fresh produce, a statistically significant proportion of respondents consistently utilises the same storage location (Table 4). Fresh beans, broccoli, Brussels sprouts, cabbages, carrot, chicory, lettuce, mushrooms, pre-cut vegetables, spinach, as well as berries and grapes are almost exclusively stored in the refrigerator (≥75%; p < 0.001). In contrast, avocados (p < 0.001) and most fruits (apple: p < 0.028; banana, citrus fruits, kaki, kiwi, pear, stone fruits and tropical fruits: p < 0.001) are predominantly stored in open storage locations, where these are kept at room temperature and are exposed to light. Fruits were primarily stored either refrigerated or in open storage locations, while other locations, such as closed storage areas, the garage, utility room or the basement, were rarely used for fruit storage.

For other product categories, there is less consensus among respondents regarding storage practices. Several vegetables are either stored in the refrigerator or at an open storage location (i.e. bell pepper, cucumber, eggplant, tomato, zucchini and most fruits). Garlic and onions are generally stored at room temperature, but differences exist around whether they are exposed to light or not (open vs closed storage). The same holds for potatoes, which are additionally sometimes stored in a utility room, garage or shed.

Table 4 indicates that fresh produce is predominantly stored in the refrigerator or at open storage locations, while alternative storage options are generally less common. However, these locations are specifically chosen to store certain items. Closed (i.e. dark) storage locations are (one of) the main storage location(s) used for garlic (p < 0.001), onions (p < 0.001, except for comparison with open storage) and potatoes (p < 0.001, except for comparison with open storage locations and utility room, garage or shed). The utility room, garage and shed are used less frequently overall, but when they are used, they predominantly serve to store long-shelf-life vegetables such as beets, cabbages, onions, potatoes and pumpkin. Similar results are found for the basement: relatively few Dutch consumers use this location to store fresh produce. However, considering the limited number of respondents' homes equipped with a basement (11%), it becomes clear that those with a basement often utilise it, particularly for storing onions (59%) and potatoes (79%).

Respondents were asked about their reasons for selecting specific storage locations for fresh vegetables (Table 5) and fruits (Table 6). For both fruits and vegetables, extending shelf life was the primary reason for selecting a storage location, with the exception of open storage. For fruits, open storage locations were mainly chosen to promote fruit consumption or because of a preference for consuming the fruit at room temperature. For vegetables, the use of open storage locations was motivated by the same reasons as for fruits, along with two additional motives: proximity to the usage area and adopting the storage method from the point of purchase.

Besides extending the shelf life, the second most mentioned motive for refrigerated storage was limiting the ripening process. For both fruits and vegetables, additional motives included preventing effects on other products, a preference for cold consumption of the products and influences from the point of purchase or from others. Influence from others, such as parents or friends, played a significant role for a quarter of the respondents when selecting a storage location for vegetables.

Interestingly, the same motive – preference for a specific consumption temperature – was cited for storing fruits both refrigerated and at room temperature. Apart from this commonality, the reasons for storing fruit at room temperature versus refrigerated are markedly distinct: refrigeration is primarily motivated by the desire to extend shelf life or to prevent further ripening and effects on other products, while room temperature storage is often chosen to promote consumption.

When fresh vegetables were purchased with packaging, most vegetables were stored in their original, unopened packaging at home (Figure 2) (p < 0.05, except for avocado, cauliflower, leek, pumpkin and zucchini). This is in contrast with storage practices for fresh fruits, for which packaging was more often removed before storage (Figure 3) (p < 0.05 for apple and pear). For a few types of vegetables packaging was removed relatively frequently, including avocado, bell pepper, garlic and potatoes. Storage behaviour was significantly affected by respondent age (p < 0.001 for vegetables, p = 0.001 for fruits), with younger respondents storing more produce in their original packaging.

Respondents had different beliefs about whether plastic packaging can affect the shelf life of fresh produce in general (Figure 4); however, these beliefs were not influenced by demographic variables (p > 0.05). The majority of respondents believed that plastic packaging could extend shelf life (56%), significantly more often than any other option (p < 0.001). In contrast, only 5% thought it would shorten the shelf life, which was significantly less frequent than all other responses (p < 0.001). A considerable proportion of respondents indicated either believing that packaging has no effect on product shelf life or not knowing whether there is an effect (18 and 21%, respectively). Some respondents noted difficulty answering this question as only one option could be selected, while for them, the effect of plastic packaging on shelf life was product-dependent.

Lastly, the survey explored disposal practices for fresh produce by Dutch consumers (Figure 5). None of the respondents reported disposing of fresh produce daily for any of the reasons presented. Presence of rotten spots was the most common reason for disposing of fresh produce, followed by the presence of mould, dehydration and off-smells or off-tastes. More than half of the respondents stated never throwing away fresh produce because of packaging sizes that are too large, or because the produce has passed the best-before-date.

Almost all respondents (99%) purchase fresh produce at least once a week, which is in line with recent data on grocery shopping frequency by Dutch consumers (Deloitte Branchegroep Retail, 2024). This study was conducted after the COVID-19 pandemic, during which online grocery shopping increased considerably (Baarsma and Groenewegen, 2021; Tyrväinen and Karjaluoto, 2022). Nevertheless, the vast majority of Dutch consumers still purchase fresh fruits and vegetables in physical supermarkets (94%), consistent with previous findings (97%) (Deloitte Branchegroep Retail, 2024). Both studies indicate that around one-fifth of Dutch consumers order fresh produce online (18 and 22%, respectively). When shopping for fresh produce, respondents deemed the quality (90%) and price (79%) of the fruits or vegetables more important than their packaging (22%), which is in line with previous findings in which price and origin were prioritised over packaging material (e.g. Lehberger et al., 2024; Martinho et al., 2015).

Our study demonstrates a clear consumer preference for a reduction in plastic packaging for fresh produce and more paper, cardboard or plastic-free offerings. This aligns with previous research showing that consumers prefer any packaging other than plastic (Langley et al., 2021), or studies reporting a strong preference for packaging-free offerings (Herrmann et al., 2022; Lehberger et al., 2024; Otto et al., 2021; Piracci et al., 2023; van Herpen et al., 2016). In the current study, the preference for plastic-free offerings was particularly pronounced for those items that are sometimes sold with packaging and sometimes without, as this inconsistency raises questions about the necessity of such packaging. Consumer understanding of the relationship between packaging and shelf life appears limited. Over one-fifth of respondents were unsure whether plastic packaging positively or negatively affects shelf life, indicating a general lack of understanding about its protective role in preserving fresh produce and reducing food waste. A further 18% of respondents do not envision any link between packaging and shelf life and 5% believe that packaging increases the likelihood of food waste, perspectives commonly associated with “anti-packaging” consumers (Langley et al., 2021).

Another factor contributing to consumers' uncertainty about the best packaging options is their limited knowledge about the sustainability of different packaging types and materials (Fernqvist et al., 2015; Lindh et al., 2016; Nguyen et al., 2020; Norton et al., 2022; Otto et al., 2021). Consumers tend to favour paper or cardboard packaging as they perceive these as more sustainable (Berthold et al., 2024; Nguyen et al., 2020; Otto et al., 2021). However, when assessing the environmental impact of packaging materials, they often overlook the potential benefits of plastic packaging in mitigating food waste (Langley et al., 2021, Otto et al., 2021, WRAP (Waste & Resource Action Programme), 2007). An example is the protective effect of plastic against moisture loss, microbial contamination and physical damage, which can help reduce spoilage and thereby food waste (Cutter, 2002; Shrivastava et al., 2022; White and Lockyer, 2020). Consumers are generally more concerned about the negative effect of packaging materials on the environment compared to the detrimental effect of food waste (Langley et al., 2021; Lindh et al., 2016). Consumer perceptions of packaging sustainability may therefore differ from its actual environmental impact, potentially undermining the effectiveness of environmentally friendly packaging strategies (Otto et al., 2021). This suggests a need for more information and guidance about the sustainability of different packaging types to help consumer make more informed choices in the supermarket.

To reduce plastic packaging for fresh produce, Dutch consumers are willing to sacrifice product availability and convenience. By limiting the year-round availability of certain fruits and vegetables, supermarkets can focus on seasonal produce, reducing transportation needs and the packaging required to preserve quality. Additionally, omitting pre-packed items like apples, potatoes and bananas can further reduce plastic use. Although it reduces convenience, it also offers advantages, including enabling consumers to select items of the preferred quality and the exact amount required. Many consumers currently feel forced to purchase larger quantities than their household needs because of pre-packaged produce (Fernqvist et al., 2015; Langley et al., 2021). However, it is important to note that consumers often do not feel empowered to enact change, as they frequently lack the ability to choose between packaged or unpackaged produce, and as a result typically purchase whichever option is available (Langley et al., 2021). Finally, because this study focused on Dutch consumers, caution is needed when generalising these findings to settings with different food cultures or retail practices.

Although some types of fresh fruits and vegetables are nearly exclusively stored in the same storage location by most respondents (mostly vegetables such as broccoli, lettuce and pre-cut vegetables), storage practices for other products vary significantly between consumers. These differences may result from varying motives for choosing that storage location. For instance, a preference for consuming a product at a certain temperature might lead some consumers to refrigerate it, while others store it at room temperature for the same reason. This variation moreover highlights that extending the shelf life of fresh produce is not always the top priority within households, as other practical considerations may take precedence. However, this does not necessarily lead to increased food waste within households. Purposefully storing fruits in a room-temperature fruit basket, for example, can encourage quicker consumption, reducing storage time and lowering the risk of spoilage and waste. Consumers may be aware of optimal storage conditions, but might deliberately choose alternative storage methods based on other priorities or considerations (Aschemann-Witzel et al., 2015).

On the other hand, variation in storage location choices among consumers for the same product may reflect a lack of knowledge about optimal storage conditions. Consumers might unknowingly store fresh produce under suboptimal conditions, believing it will extend the product's shelf life (Terpstra et al., 2005, WRAP (Waste & Resource Action Programme), 2011). Although storage information is frequently provided on packaging, consumers often disregard it, feeling confident in their storage practices (Langley et al., 2021, WRAP (Waste & Resource Action Programme), 2008, 2011). Moreover, optimal storage conditions may differ from those at the retailer. However, many consumers continue to use the same storage methods as at the time of purchase, a trend also observed in earlier research (WRAP (Waste & Resource Action Programme), 2011). Both factors may lead to suboptimal storage conditions, which can accelerate quality deterioration and consequently reduce shelf life of fresh produce (Lufu et al., 2020). This highlights that ignoring storage advice on packaging can lead to improper storage methods, which have been identified as a key factor contributing to food waste (Farr-Wharton et al., 2014; Schanes et al., 2018). It should however be noted that inefficient storage practices do not necessarily result in food being wasted, especially if corrective actions are undertaken during later stages, such as removing spoilt parts or repurposing ingredients during food preparation.

This study reveals a clear distinction between the storage practices for fruits and vegetables, a finding that aligns with research from the United Kingdom (WRAP (Waste & Resource Action Programme), 2008b). The majority of fruits were stored at room temperature in visible locations, such as fruit baskets, dinner tables or windowsills, making them easily accessible. In contrast, vegetables were predominantly stored in the refrigerator, out of sight. This difference might be explained by varying consumption moments: in the Netherlands, vegetables are mainly consumed during dinner, while fruits are often eaten between meals (Van Rossum et al., 2016). This explains why fruits are often stored in visible storage locations, as this may encourage household members to consume them. However, fruits were not exclusively stored visibly at room temperature. A considerable proportion of consumers also chose to refrigerate fruits, either partially or entirely. The main reasons to do so are to stop the ripening process or to extend the fruit's shelf life. Some consumers utilised both storage methods simultaneously: keeping a small portion on display to promote consumption, while storing the remainder in the refrigerator to preserve shelf life.

Another clear distinction between fruits and vegetables is evident in how their packaging is handled after purchase. Vegetables were predominantly stored in their original packaging, whereas for most fruits packaging is removed before storage. This finding aligns with results from WRAP (Waste & Resource Action Programme) (2008b), which observed similar patterns in the handling of packaging for fruits and vegetables. This distinction between fruits and vegetables could be related to the fact that fruits are often stored in room-temperature locations, where the fruits are visible. Packaging removal may be preferred for aesthetic reasons, whereas storage in closed locations like cupboards, drawers or refrigerators does not require such considerations. Fresh produce may also be stored in its original packaging to prolong product shelf life (Mahajan et al., 2016, WRAP (Waste & Resource Action Programme), 2018). Over half of the respondents in the current study believe that plastic packaging can extend the shelf life of fresh produce. Similarly, Langley et al. (2021) identified a segment of consumers categorised as “pro-packaging”, who recognise packaging's potential to reduce food waste. Additional reasons for preferring plastic packaging included hygiene, food safety and protection against physical damage, highlighting the perceived practical benefits that can outweigh concerns over environmental impact. However, the remaining 44% of respondents were either unaware of the shelf life benefits of storing fresh produce in its original packaging, or believed that packaging reduces shelf life.

Although respondents reported not disposing of fresh produce daily, the presence of rot or mould still leads to considerable disposal on a monthly basis. Since the development of rot and mould depends on humidity, temperature and storage duration (Snow et al., 1944), the conditions under which produce is stored may play a critical role in this process. Optimising storage conditions could help maintain produce quality for a longer period, potentially extending its shelf life and reducing waste.

This study did not record any actual data on the disposal of fresh produce, which limits the ability to directly evaluate consumer disposal practices. Variations in definitions of food waste (Girotto et al., 2015; Teigiserova et al., 2020) create challenges for respondents when estimating the amount of fresh produce they discard, especially when distinguishing between avoidable (i.e. food that was originally suitable for consumption) and unavoidable waste (i.e. inedible parts, such as peels, seeds, stems and leaves). Therefore, studies focusing on quantifying actual household food waste have used other study designs (CREM Waste Management, 2017, WRAP (Waste & Resource Action Programme), 2008a). Given that self-reported data on sensitive topics such as sustainable behaviour and food waste are often unreliable, the current study could not collect reliable data on household disposal practices. Since consumers regard discarding food as improper behaviour (Porpino et al., 2015), responses may be influenced by social desirability bias (Grimm, 2010), with respondents aligning their answers with perceived societal norms or researcher expectations. Similarly, self-enhancement bias (Krueger, 1998) may lead respondents to provide responses that make them feel better about their own behaviour. These biases can result in an overstatement of socially desirable actions or an underreporting of behaviours perceived as negative. For instance, respondents might understate disposal frequencies to appear more socially responsible. This highlights the discrepancy between reported intentions and actual behaviour, suggesting that true disposal frequencies may be higher than those reported in Figure 5.

Guilt may, on the one hand, contribute to consumers underreporting actual disposal rates, but it is also a motive for reducing food waste (Neff et al., 2015; Qi and Roe, 2016; Soorani and Ahmadvand, 2019). However, other factors, such as saving money, setting a good example for children, and improving household efficiency, are often more significant reasons for reducing food waste (Neff et al., 2015). In fact, environmental concerns were ranked as the least important, with only slightly over 10% of American respondents considering the environmental impact of food waste to be very important. This lack of concern is also reflected in the general lack of awareness among consumers regarding both the environmental impact of food waste and the amount of food waste generated within households (Quested et al., 2011). As a matter of fact, consumers believe that reducing packaging for fresh produce is more important for the environment compared to reducing food waste (Langley et al., 2021).

The aim of this study was to examine the practices and preferences of Dutch consumers regarding the purchase, storage and packaging of fresh fruits and vegetables. The findings indicate that only one-fifth of Dutch consumers take packaging material into account when purchasing fresh produce. This limited consideration is likely influenced by the restricted packaging options available at the point of purchase, as consumers can only select from what is offered. Moreover, existing packaging formats frequently do not align with consumer preferences. Consumers generally express a desire for reduced plastic usage, favouring paper, cardboard or opting for unpackaged produce where feasible. However, it should be taken into account that consumer awareness of the protective role of packaging and its potential to reduce food waste is generally low. Based on findings from the current study, it is suggested to minimise plastic use by limiting fixed-weight packaging for fresh produce and aligning product offerings more closely with seasonal availability.

There is substantial variation among consumers in storage practices for fresh produce, with differences observed in how specific items are stored. This variability is probably related to diverse consumer motives for choosing particular storage locations, which may not always focus on prolonging shelf life. Although some consumers may be aware of the optimal storage conditions for fresh produce, they may intentionally choose alternative storage methods due to other priorities or considerations. Since suboptimal storage conditions can accelerate quality deterioration and ultimately increase the likelihood of fresh produce being discarded, these findings suggest the need for targeted consumer education. Effective communication campaigns should emphasise how adopting optimal storage conditions can directly reduce food waste. One solution could be the use of dual storage locations: one for short-term use and another for longer-term storage, where optimal conditions can be maintained. Rather than focusing solely on the long-term and abstract environmental impacts, such initiatives could prioritise more immediate and tangible benefits, such as financial savings for consumers.

Policies on the use of plastic packaging for fresh produce should not rely solely on consumers' knowledge and willingness to reduce packaging use, as consumers generally lack awareness of how plastic can protect fresh produce from damage and quality deterioration along the food chain. The prevalent misconception that the environmental impact of plastic packaging outweighs that of food waste underscores the need for improved consumer education. It is therefore advisable that the food retail sector or the government takes responsibility for determining when the use of plastic packaging is justifiable to prevent food waste and when it can be avoided if redundant or primarily serving convenience.