WEBVTT

1
00:00:00.404 --> 00:00:02.987
(upbeat music)

2
00:00:09.559 --> 00:00:13.227 line:15% 
<v ->Did you know that one third of all food produced</v>

3
00:00:13.227 --> 00:00:15.327 line:15% 
is either lost or wasted

4
00:00:15.327 --> 00:00:18.586 line:15% 
as estimated by the Food and Agricultural Organization

5
00:00:18.586 --> 00:00:20.603
of the United Nations?

6
00:00:20.603 --> 00:00:23.472
In fact, if food waste was a country,

7
00:00:23.472 --> 00:00:27.021
it would be the third largest greenhouse gas contributor

8
00:00:27.021 --> 00:00:30.150
next to China and the United States.

9
00:00:30.150 --> 00:00:33.263
Unfortunately though, much of this food waste

10
00:00:33.263 --> 00:00:37.364
in developed countries simply comes from a consumer's desire

11
00:00:37.364 --> 00:00:40.049
to have aesthetically-pleasing produce.

12
00:00:40.049 --> 00:00:42.290
This results in blemished produce,

13
00:00:42.290 --> 00:00:44.961
or produce that is nutritionally OK,

14
00:00:44.961 --> 00:00:47.758
but it does not meet the aesthetic standards needed

15
00:00:47.758 --> 00:00:50.840
to go to the market, to be discarded.

16
00:00:50.840 --> 00:00:53.611
For example, because this tomato

17
00:00:53.611 --> 00:00:56.823
does not meet the USDA's highest standard

18
00:00:56.823 --> 00:00:59.690
of being perfectly round and unscarred,

19
00:00:59.690 --> 00:01:01.382
it would not go to the market

20
00:01:01.382 --> 00:01:04.669
because consumers would be less likely to purchase it,

21
00:01:04.669 --> 00:01:07.469
and it's ending up being discarded.

22
00:01:07.469 --> 00:01:11.541
Therefore, my project uses a non-hypothetical option

23
00:01:11.541 --> 00:01:14.866
to ask consumers their maximum willingness to pay,

24
00:01:14.866 --> 00:01:17.780
or their maximum bid, for sweet potatoes

25
00:01:17.780 --> 00:01:20.607
with five different skinning level injuries.

26
00:01:20.607 --> 00:01:25.179
We had 88 participants of varying demographic backgrounds

27
00:01:25.179 --> 00:01:28.393
and asked them each their maximum willingness to pay

28
00:01:28.393 --> 00:01:30.840
for each of these five different sweet potatoes

29
00:01:30.840 --> 00:01:34.964
before and after a set of information was given.

30
00:01:34.964 --> 00:01:37.222
This information varied depending upon

31
00:01:37.222 --> 00:01:38.943
the group you were in.

32
00:01:38.943 --> 00:01:41.152
Group one received information

33
00:01:41.152 --> 00:01:44.929
on how aesthetic preferences contribute to food waste.

34
00:01:44.929 --> 00:01:47.990
Group two received the same information

35
00:01:47.990 --> 00:01:49.706
and received information

36
00:01:49.706 --> 00:01:53.232
on the environmental impacts of food waste.

37
00:01:53.232 --> 00:01:55.411
From this graph, it appears

38
00:01:55.411 --> 00:01:57.964
that giving consumers information

39
00:01:57.964 --> 00:02:02.375
on how aesthetic preferences contribute to food waste alone

40
00:02:02.375 --> 00:02:05.458
creates a 17 cents per pound premium.

41
00:02:06.410 --> 00:02:07.657
Adding this information

42
00:02:07.657 --> 00:02:10.800
about the environmental impacts of food waste

43
00:02:10.800 --> 00:02:14.876
creates approximately a 33 cents per pound premium.

44
00:02:14.876 --> 00:02:18.405
While these numbers are based upon average bids alone,

45
00:02:18.405 --> 00:02:22.039
we are currently estimating econometric models to determine

46
00:02:22.039 --> 00:02:24.795
if these are statistically significant

47
00:02:24.795 --> 00:02:27.831
and what demographic backgrounds contribute

48
00:02:27.831 --> 00:02:30.544
to the demand for these products.

49
00:02:30.544 --> 00:02:32.354
My research has implications

50
00:02:32.354 --> 00:02:34.583
for the economic research service

51
00:02:34.583 --> 00:02:37.738
as they continue to further investigate methods

52
00:02:37.738 --> 00:02:40.481
and opportunities to mitigate food waste.

53
00:02:40.481 --> 00:02:42.108
Thank you.

54
00:02:42.108 --> 00:02:44.691
(upbeat music)