Cosmetic downgrades in horticulture

Cosmetic downgrades in horticulture
What are the top 3 cosmetic specifications that cause the most downgrades for your crop?

Growers and industry stakeholders are invited to complete this short survey to highlight where cosmetic based issues most commonly cause lost revenue & crop loss.

We know that cosmetic specifications are an important part of horticulture, helping to maintain consistency for markets, retailers and consumers. However these specifications can inadvertently lead to high eating quality produce being excluded from markets and losing the premium value they should attract. This can impact on grower profitability through reduced returns and additional costs to deal with the excluded/downgraded produce.

This survey is focussed on understanding which cosmetic requirements currently contribute most to downgrades that do not deliver clear commercial or consumer benefit.
- This survey is part of the project: HN24001 Reducing On-Farm Food Waste and Unlocking Its Value for Grower Profitability and Sustainability
  
  The aim of this work is practical and grower‑led: reducing avoidable product loss only where it makes commercial sense for growers, while maintaining quality outcomes across the supply chain.
  
  Findings will be reported in aggregated form only.
  
  You will not be quoted unless we separately agree in writing for this.
- What crop(s) do you grow?
- What part of the supply chain are you in? (tick all that apply)
  
  Grower/ProducerPacker/ProcessorWholesalerRetailerIndustry bodyOther (please specify)
- What are the top 3 cosmetic specifications that cause the most downgrades in your crop(s)?
  For this project, we are focusing on cosmetic specifications that do not affect eating quality. Please provide details only on cosmetic factors that lead to downgrades (e.g. skin blemishes, shape or form defects). If possible, please note how or where are applied (e.g. retail, wholesale, export).
- Are there any challenges or inconsistencies in how cosmetic specifications are set, interpreted, or applied across your markets?
  Please describe any issues and their impact on your business. For example, differences between customers, difficulty in negotiating specifications, or variability in how standards are enforced.
- Thanks for participating in this short survey, it may be useful for the team to have a chat with you about your submission, to help understand what is occurring and how it aligns with other feedback. If you're happy for us to contact you to clarify your response please provide your contact details below. (Optional)
- Name
  
  First NameLast Name
- Organisation
- Phone Number
  
  Area CodePhone Number
- This survey is part of the project: HN24001 Reducing On-Farm Food Waste and Unlocking Its Value for Grower Profitability and Sustainability
  
  Project HN24001 Reducing on-farm food waste and unlocking its value for grower profitability and sustainability is funded through Hort Innovation Frontiers with co-investment from End Food Waste Cooperative Research Centre, whose research activities are funded by the Australian Government’s Cooperative Research Centre (CRC) Program, Queensland Department of Primary Industries, South Australian Research and Development Institute (SARDI), the University of Queensland and contributions from the Australian Government.
  
  We also acknowledge the in-kind support of the project’s partners, researchers, growers, and industry participants.
  
  All data collected will be held as per the confidentiality policies of End Food Waste Australia.
Should be Empty:

Cosmetic downgrades in horticulture

What are the top 3 cosmetic specifications that cause the most downgrades for your crop?