Skip to content

Science Not yet confirmed elsewhere1 publisher 2 min read Published

Many shoppers take a deep discount on misfit produce as a sign of poor quality, a researcher says

Stressed US shoppers still pass over discounted misfit food because they doubt its quality, a consumer researcher says. The author's studies point sellers of rescued and upcycled food toward quality labels ahead of price cuts or carbon claims.

The Scientist · Science desk

How we use AI Send a correction

Illustration accompanying Many shoppers take a deep discount on misfit produce as a sign of poor quality, a researcher says
Generated illustration
Rescued and upcycled food grew in 2025 Meals saved by Too Good To Go's US users, Upcycled Certified sales growth and food rescued by Misfits Market, as the essay reports.

Too Good To Go's US users saved 8.1 million meals in the first seven months of 2025, up 67% on the year before. Upcycled Certified product sales grew 17% from 2024 to 2025, with over 600 products labelled. Misfits Market rescued 27 million pounds in 2025, up from 23 million in 2019.

Rescued and upcycled food grew in 2025
FigureValueNoteClaim
Too Good To Go US meals saved, first seven months of 20258.1 million mealsa 67% jump from the year before11
Upcycled Certified product sales growth, 2024 to 202517%more than 600 products carry the label17
Food rescued by Misfits Market in 202527 million poundsup from 23 million in 201912

What happened

  • Almost three-quarters of Americans say they are stressed about skyrocketing grocery bills, according to the essay.
  • Labeling produce as 'ugly' reduces the bias against it, the essay reports, because the word signals that the only flaw is cosmetic.
  • A separate study field-tested an in-store message, 'Different Outside. Same Inside', that successfully urged shoppers to overlook external appearance when judging people or food.
  • In the author's studies of upcycled foods, buyers decided largely on whether they believed the product was as good as its conventional counterpart.
  • More than 600 products from over 100 brands now carry the Upcycled Certified label, and sales of certified products grew 17% from 2024 to 2025.

Why it matters

  • decision A seller weighing a deeper discount against a quality-first label has the author's results pointing to the label. We'd test the label at the current price before cutting price further.
  • constraint Upcycled products sell at a premium, so they cannot discount past doubt [c15]. Their certification is an audit of the supply chain [c13], a claim about origin. The doubt in the author's studies is about equivalence.
  • exposure Rescue brands pitch shoppers who want to save and cut their carbon footprint [c10], with Misfits Market's average discount at 35% [c9]. Those are the two motives the author ranks below quality.

The paradox in the essay is assembled from figures that were not measured on the same people. The stress figure is a share of Americans who say they feel it [1]. The waste figure covers consumers, retailers and producers together [3]. Some of the essay's examples, such as "best before" items pulled from shelves early [2], never reach a shopper's hands.

The core claim is a ranking. According to the author, who studies how consumers evaluate product value and quality, American shoppers care less about price or environmental impact than about quality [4]. The behavior described is specific: even when misfit produce is deeply discounted, many shoppers assume the low price reflects poor quality, then walk away or reach for produce they think looks better [5]. A ranking of three motives needs a design that varies price, appearance and the carbon message separately, and ideally measures price stress. The essay reports no sample sizes, effect sizes or comparison conditions for any study it cites, so the size of the price-cue effect, as against appearance, cannot be read from it.

The two label findings are the most actionable part of the essay. The "ugly" wording and the "Different Outside. Same Inside" message are both told as successes, and the in-store message comes from another study [8]. The author wrote that people "have to believe the food is good first" [6].

The essay says consumers appear to be responding [16]. Misfits Market rescued 27 million pounds in 2025 against 23 million in 2019 [12], a rise of about 17% over six years [18]. Too Good To Go's U.S. users saved 8.1 million meals in the first seven months of 2025, up 67% on the year before [11]. One is pounds across six years, the other meals across seven months. Both are volumes, so neither can show how many shoppers who once skipped misfit food now buy it.

In our view the quality-first half of the argument is the better supported, since the label results, as described, point the same way as the walk-away behavior. The ranking over price and carbon is the half to hold loosely until the underlying studies show their numbers.

What to watch

  • Whether the author's studies, once their numbers are visible, show sample sizes and effect sizes for price against quality.
  • A label test at constant price, cosmetic-flaw wording against a plain discount, would show how much of the gain is the wording.
  • Whether certified upcycled brands add a quality-equivalence claim to the audit label, and what happens to the 17% sales growth when they do.

Clarity's read

What the record supports and how the coverage leans. The claims behind it follow.

Reality

Evidence50
Adoption45
Hype gap+10
Incentives
Insufficient
Confidence50
Why these scores

Claim ledger

Ranked by verification strength, evidence, and original report placement.

  1. [1]

    Almost three-quarters of Americans say they are feeling stressed out about skyrocketing grocery bills.

    Reported Supported Source: Essay by a consumer researcher, published by phys.orgView cited source
  2. [2]

    Americans keep discarding large quantities of safe-to-eat food, from crooked carrots to surplus yogurt to 'best before' items pulled from shelves early.

    Reported Supported Source: Essay author, phys.orgView cited source
  3. [3]

    The U.S. government estimates that 30% to 40% of all food, from consumers, retailers and producers, is thrown out.

    Reported Supported Source: U.S. government estimate as cited in the essayView cited source

Sources

1 independent publisher whose own reporting we read for this story.

  1. phys.org

    1 article · October 13, 2026

    Americans are stressed about grocery prices, so why do they toss or overlook so much 'misfit' food?

Share your take

Let Clarity write the post for you.

Signed-in readers get a short post drafted on this story in the register they choose — narrative, analytical, or a direct position — editable to the last word before it goes anywhere. The share buttons at the top of this story work without an account.

Topics and entities

Follow any of these and your For You feed starts watching them — no settings page required.

Entities

Loading related stories