Last year, Australia's largest supermarket chain, Woolworths, released its "Odd Bunch" campaign, and New South Wales food retailer Harris Farms launched its "imperfect picks" range.
More recently, Canada's largest supermarket, Loblaws, announced the rollout of its "naturally imperfect" range.
Asda and Woolworths have used celebrity chef Jamie Oliver to help add credibility and consumer interest to the campaigns.
Not all supermarkets have been quick to follow. Some, instead, are only cautiously approaching this new phenomenon.
The UK's largest food retailer, Tesco, last year told the House of Lords EU sub-committee on agriculture its supermarkets regularly supplied misshaped fruit and vegetables to Eastern and Central European stores but found British consumers consistently demanded better quality. It called for consumer education campaigns to support the programme.
It is too early to tell whether this foray into ugly food will be a resounding success for supermarket retailers but it is not unreasonable to assume supermarkets may struggle to get shoppers on side.
After many years of buyers rejecting blemished and oddly shaped produce, and store managers removing offending items from shelves, shoppers have been conditioned to expect only the highest levels of freshness, quality and aesthetics.
However, supermarkets that have effectively launched an ugly food programme have gained from a perceived positive corporate social responsibility position and increased sales.
Intermarche gained strong public support during the initial launch of its "Inglorious Fruit & Vegetable" campaign, selling 1.2 tonnes of misshaped fruit and vegetables across its stores in just two days, receiving a 24 per cent increase in foot traffic, 3.6 million views on YouTube and more than 500,000 Facebook likes.
Being able to provide lower-priced fresh fruit and vegetables to low socio-economic consumer groups and promote healthy eating is also a positive outcome for retailers and shoppers.
Ultimately, an ugly food programme is a win-win for all those in the supply chain; growers, retailers and consumers.
It also reduces supply chain costs. Ugly produce would normally be transported from the farm gate to the market, only to be rejected, then transported back and disposed of.
Now, such produce can be accepted, albeit at a lower "buy" price and sent on to stores as an ugly food alternative. This reduces costs to farmers, supermarkets and shoppers.
Assuming retailers are successful in convincing consumers of the merits of ugly food, the strategy could create price pressure across the category.
From a shopper's perspective, when provided a choice of loose, somewhat misshaped carrots at a low price, versus perfectly presented, aesthetically pleasing, high-priced carrots, will shoppers simply switch to the cheaper option? Will price discounted, lower-quality produce reduce waste? Some say no.
The alleged power of the major supermarkets has come under increasing criticism and inquiry.
Potentially the ugly food movement could inadvertently create a market where supermarket buyers are able to set very low "buy" prices for subjectively imperfect fruit and vegetables, with the alternative being to reject.
Gary Mortimer is Senior Lecturer, Business School at Queensland University of Technology. Originally published at theconversation.com/au.
What do you think? Email letters@hos.co.nz
