Next Article in Journal
Prioritization of Socio-Ecological Indicators for Adaptation Action in Pauri District of Western Himalaya
Previous Article in Journal
Diversity and Opportunities for Rural Development: Reflecting Awareness, Understanding and Activities in Rural Areas
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
World
Volume 4
Issue 3
10.3390/world4030024
world-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Retail Price Differences between Packaged and Unpackaged Fruits (Apples) and Vegetables (Tomatoes, Peppers)

by
Samuel Fritschi
1,
Thomas Decker
2 and
Sven Sängerlaub
1,3,*
1
Department for Technical Systems, Processes and Communication, Munich University of Applied Sciences HM, Lothstraße 38, 80335 Munich, Germany
2
Marketing and Management of Biogenic Resources, Weihenstephan-Triesdorf University of Applied Sciences, Am Essigberg 3, 94315 Straubing, Germany
3
Fraunhofer Institute for Process Engineering and Packaging IVV, Giggenhauser Straße 35, 85354 Freising, Germany
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
World 2023, 4(3), 368-392; https://doi.org/10.3390/world4030024
Submission received: 29 April 2023 / Revised: 3 June 2023 / Accepted: 20 June 2023 / Published: 23 June 2023
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Since, according to many scientific studies, price is a very important factor when buying fruits and vegetables, it is interesting to study whether price differences between them occur in retail markets. Because of the discussion regarding sustainability, we performed an observational, orienting study on the retail prices of frequently bought packaged and unpackaged fruits and vegetables (apples, tomatoes, and bell peppers) in the Munich area in February and March 2022. We also differentiated between organic and non-organic produce. The relationship between the type of packaging (packaged versus unpackaged) and the retail price (EUR/kg) was determined by means of correlation coefficients, and we examined whether unpackaged products were more expensive than the packaged variants. The results differed for the organic and non-organic variants of the products, as well as among the individual fruit and vegetable varieties. We found a tendency towards unpackaged products being more expensive than packaged fruits and vegetables, in three out of four cases for the non-organic and two out of three cases for the organic products. For all cases, single products and single cost values were observed where the opposite was found.

1. Introduction

The food category of fruits and vegetables is interesting because fruits and vegetables have a preventive effect against chronic diseases [1,2]. The “5 a day” health campaign promotes higher consumption of fruits and vegetables [3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13]. The central message is to eat at least five portions of fruits and vegetables daily (three portions of vegetables and two portions of fruits). Due to their healthy nature, the cost of fresh produce is of public relevance.
In Germany, as of 2022, 125,184 ha of land (open field and protected) were used for vegetable production and 47,270 ha for tree fruit production [14]. The share of self-sufficiency in 2021 was 36% for vegetables and 20% for fruits [15], the rest being imported. The largest share of fruit was taken by the apple crop, with a harvest volume of over one million tons in 2021 [16].
Before the harvested produce arrives at local supermarkets, there is an additional loss of about 20% in European countries, when the harvested fruit and vegetables are sorted out, e.g., according to aesthetic aspects [17]. To maintain freshness and to fulfil aesthetic aspects, many products are packaged.
However, with the increasing importance of environmental awareness, offering unpackaged food has become a more central focus in retail. However, only a limited scope of research deals with the acceptance of unpackaged foods [18] and the prices of packaged and unpackaged foods [19,20]. Concerns exist regarding hygienic conditions [21]. Furthermore, these products have shorter shelf-lives [22,23,24,25], e.g., due to increased dehydration at produce [26,27,28,29]. To extend the shelf life, the application of edible coatings can be a measure [30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40]. Interestingly, fruit and vegetables are very rarely available packaged in organic food stores. What is also interesting is the fact that fruits and vegetables are discussed by the public in terms of packaging.
Customer acceptance of unpackaged fruit and vegetables is very high, especially in supermarkets, with 100% acceptance; in organic markets, with 91%; and even in discounters, with 93% [41]. However, the willingness to pay more for unpackaged products is relatively low in comparison. In another survey, 69% of respondents indicated that they were not willing to pay more for unpackaged products [42].
In addition to being unpackaged, organic food is also an important trend in fruits and vegetables.
Health-conscious [24,43,44,45] and environmentally conscious consumers have “[…] a strong effect on the purchase of organic products” [46,47,48,49,50]. The relatively small share of sales of organic products is due to, among other things, the retail price barrier [49,51], which, together with a lack of product knowledge and doubts about authenticity, is one of the main barriers to buying organic food [52]. “[…] retailers charged a premium price for organic food.” [53]. The retail price barrier appears in the low willingness to pay price premiums for organic products. In order to expand the organic market, it is therefore necessary to reduce the retail price barrier, on the one hand, and to overcome the information barrier on the other [54]. A higher yield risk, as well as the extra work involved in organic production, leads to higher costs and ultimately higher retail prices than for non-organic products [55]. Other contributing factors are lower productivity and higher labour costs, because of the reliance on hand weeding [56]. Consequently, reducing the retail price barrier is only possible to a limited extent. In addition, the willingness to pay a premium for organic products varies greatly from one product to another, in contrast to the 20% assumed across the board [57]. Another study reported 17% to 39% willingness to pay more for sustainable food products [58]. For fruits and vegetables, according to an older study from 2007, the willingness to pay more than the expected retail price of an organic product is 41.9% and 39.7%, respectively [59]. However, only consumers of organic foods were surveyed here, which is why the survey does not provide any information on the willingness of consumers buying non-organic foods to pay more.
Against this background, the main goal of the article is to explore whether unpackaged products have higher retail prices than the packaged variants, therefore making them less attractive for consumers. To test this, the following study examines the retail prices of packaged and unpackaged fruits and vegetables for organic and non-organic products. Apples, tomatoes, and bell peppers were chosen because these are popular produce types, with 31 kg of tomatoes and 22 kg of apples in Germany and 5 kg of peppers in Austria consumed per year and person in 2021 and 2022 [60,61,62].
The hypothesis H1 in this article is that non-packaged fruits and vegetables are more expensive than their packaged counterparts. This hypothesis is based on the following assumptions: Packaging and its selection plays a very important role in maintaining or even increasing the shelf life of fresh produce, like fruits and vegetables [63,64]. It provides protection from dust, reduces microbial contamination from consumer contact or the surrounding environment, and therefore helps to maintain the freshness of produce [65]. The absence of packaging, and the consequential higher waste rate, decreases the sale of fresh produce and leads to higher retail prices [65].

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Data Collection

For the recording of the retail prices of the packaged and unpackaged fruits and vegetables, various stores involved in the food retail trade in the greater Munich area were selected. This region was chosen because of the high standard of living and the various shops available there.
The focus was on the assortment of organic and non-organic products. It was expected that they would differ in the price and relevance of packaging to consumers. It was noticeable that the organic assortment had relatively few products, which were mostly packaged. To collect a larger amount of data on organic products, pure organic food stores were also included. For a reliable analysis and to collect a large amount of data, as many different grocery stores as possible were visited, and their retail prices for different fruits and vegetables were recorded. In total, 13 outlets of the following food stores were included in the data collection: “Edeka”, “Rewe”, “Lidl”, “Aldi”, “Penny”, “Netto”, “Hit”, “Alnatura”, “Denn`s”, “Basic”, and “Tagwerk Biomarkt Arkade”. Other outlets of these food stores were not included, as they had the same products with the same prices as the included outlets. Organic foods might have had generally premium prices. This aspect was not assessed in the evaluation. The period of data collection lasted from 1 February to 1 April 2022. In total, 245 prices were recorded.
The following varieties were selected because they are commonly consumed produce in Germany: apples, tomatoes, and peppers. These were selected due to the number of different products, the different types of packaging, and the good availability of organic items. For the actual retail price recording, the selected grocery stores were visited once, and then photos of the products and retail prices were taken. Advertising prices were noted. Different kinds of apples, e.g., “Pink Lady” and “Gala”, were not differentiated. (However, the original data are provided in the supplementary file).
The Microsoft Excel program was used as an evaluation tool. A survey sheet was created for each of the three types of fruits and vegetables. In addition to the name and type of packaging, the type of cultivation, i.e., organic, or non-organic, and the origin of the product were documented. Aside from that, the retail price type (retail price per kilogram/retail price per unit), the quantity sold, and the retail outlet where the product was offered were also recorded.

2.2. Data Analysis

To compare unpackaged and packaged products, the retail price needed to be adjusted to a common unit. In this case, prices in the unit of EUR/kg were a suitable option, since unpackaged products are usually sold with this unit.
The focus of the retail price analysis was the comparison of unpackaged and packaged fruits and vegetables. To carry out the comparison between unpackaged and packaged, the arithmetic means of the retail prices were determined, and a boxplot was created for both unpackaged and packaged varieties. To find connections between the retail price and the packaging type, it was checked whether there was a correlation between the two variables.
Organic and non-organic products were considered separately. Furthermore, the retail price by country/region of origin of non-organic products, the retail price behaviour of different quantities of non-organic products, and the transport routes were examined, because differences were expected at this stage.
In addition, the mean value of the surcharge to be paid for the organic variant of the analysed product was determined. In the process of the analysis, special offers as well as premium products with high retail prices, which were not available as unpackaged and packaged or equivalently as organic and non-organic products, were not included.

2.3. Statistical Correlation

With the determination of the correlation, it could be checked whether two variables were related to each other [66]. Depending on the scale of the variables to be analysed, different correlation coefficients were used.
The variables and their scales considered in this work are shown in Table 1. They were chosen due to their expected relevance. Interval scales, such as the retail price and quantity of a product sold, are metric scales. Therefore, the Pearson correlation coefficient can be used to determine the correlation. The Pearson correlation coefficient determines linear correlations and can take values between −1, 0, and 1, whereby the closer the value is to −1 or 1, the greater the correlation of the examined variables [67]. Whether it is a negative or positive correlation is determined by the sign of the coefficient [67]. The Pearson correlation coefficient cannot be used when examining the correlation between a nominal scaled variable and an interval scaled variable. An example would be the examination of the correlation between retail price and packaging type. In this case, the Eta coefficient (η) is required, which can take numerical values between 0 and 1, with a higher value indicating a stronger correlation [68]. While the Eta coefficient describes the magnitude of the relationship, Eta squared (η2) indicates the explained proportion of variation of the dependent variable.

2.4. Analysis of Price Premiums

The price premium is the extra cost consumers need to pay when purchasing certified organic foods [69]. In price analysis, the price premium is often regarded as a relative value. In this case, we defined it as the percentage of the average price of non-organic product [69,70,71].
Therefore, Equation (1) was used to determine the price premium.
P p = P o − P ( n ) P ( n )
P(p)—price premium; P(o)—price organic product; P(n)—price non-organic product.
The price premium was calculated for all three varieties used in this study. For the price of the organic product (P(o)) and the price of the non-organic product (P(n)), the mean values were used.

3. Results

3.1. Apples

3.1.1. Types of Packaging and Origin

The most retail prices could be documented for apples among the selected fruit and vegetable varieties. A total of 126 datasets of organic and non-organic apples were recorded. The percentage of organic apples was 33% compared to the 67% of non-organic apples. Retail prices ranged from a retail price per kilogram of EUR 0.99/kg to 5.44/kg.
With 56%, unpackaged apples were the most common type of packaging, followed by cardboard trays, with 21%, and cardboard trays wrapped in plastic bags, with 13%. The high percentage of unpackaged apples is mainly due to organic food stores, which generally offer fruit and vegetables only unpackaged. Rare and hardly represented packaging types were plastic bags (7%); plastic nets (2%); and plastic trays wrapped with plastic bags, with only 1%.
The largest percentage of apples came from Germany, at 60%, of which 9% were designated as regional products. The most imported apples came from Italy, with 20%, and from France, with 13%. Comparing the transport routes of the packaged and unpackaged apples, it appeared that there were few differences in the percentages of apples transported internationally and nationally. In fact, 62% of the packaged apples and 58% of the unpackaged apples originated in Germany. Due to data procurement in February and March 2022, the results are valid only for this period.
Since many of the organic apples came from organic food stores and, for the most part, only unpackaged fruits and vegetables were offered there, it is interesting to look at the ratio of packaged to unpackaged apples in normal supermarkets for organic and non-organic apples. For non-organic apples, the proportion is almost identical, with 51% packaged and 49% unpackaged. Only 20% of organic products were offered unpackaged, and 80% packaged. Furthermore, only 15 organic apples were offered in the supermarket, compared to 84 non-organic apples.

3.1.2. Packaged and Unpackaged Retail Prices: Non-Organic Apples

The retail price comparison for packaged and unpackaged apples was implemented separately for organic and non-organic products. The reason for this was the higher retail prices of the organic products and the possibility of a difference in the retail price ratio for unpackaged and packaged products.
To compare the retail prices of unpackaged and packaged apples, all types of packaging were unified into the category “packaged”. Retail prices that were special offers, as well as expensive products and branded products that were not present in both compared categories, were excluded from the retail price analysis. With the deduction of the 5 affected products, 41 data sets of unpackaged and 38 data sets of packaged apples were obtained.
The retail prices are shown graphically as boxplots in Figure 1. Figure 1 shows the unpackaged apples in grey and the packaged apples in orange. The y-axis with the retail price in EUR is an interval scale, while the x-axis is nominally scaled with the two distinctions of packaged and unpackaged. Looking at the retail prices of the unpackaged apples, three outliers can be seen in the boxplot, with the retail prices of EUR 1.99/kg, 1.39/kg, and 1.29/kg. For the packaged apples, there were no outliers. The arithmetic mean of the retail prices of the unpackaged apples was EUR 2.89/kg, and that of the packaged apples was EUR 2.19/kg. A comparison of the mean values showed a surcharge of 32% for unpackaged products. The result of the data evaluation was that the retail price averages of packaged and unpackaged apples differed statistically significantly. Unpackaged apples were, therefore, significantly more expensive than packaged apples. The effect size of the difference was 0.59, and was, therefore, above the value of 0.4 set by Cohen, from which one can speak of a strong effect [72]. However, that finding does not apply to all single points.
To determine the correlation between the retail price and packaging type, a correlation measure must be determined. In the case of a dependent interval-scaled variable, in this case the retail price, and an independent nominally scaled variable, here in the form of unpackaged and packaged, this is the Eta coefficient [68]. The coefficient is 0.51 and describes the strength of the relationship between the variables (Table 2). In an example, Benninghaus describes the Eta coefficient values of η = 0.26 as a relatively weak and η = 0.76 as relatively strong, representing the relationships between the variables [68]. Based on this example, a value of η = 0.51 can be seen as a correlation of medium strength. If the Eta coefficient is squared, the Eta square is obtained, which describes the explained proportion of variation of the dependent variable. In this case, Eta squared is 0.26. This means that 26% of the variation in the variable retail price can be explained by the type of packaging.

3.1.3. Packaged and Unpackaged Retail Prices: Organic Apples

Due to differing retail price levels, the retail prices for the unpackaged and packaged organic and non-organic apples were analysed separately. However, the sorting of the data sets was based on the same principles as described in Section 2.
Figure 2 shows the boxplots for the unpackaged and packaged organic apples. The orange boxplot shows the retail prices for the packaged apples, and the grey boxplot shows the retail price distribution of the unpackaged apples. The y-axis is the retail price in EUR, and the x-axis assigns the categories of “unpackaged” and “packaged” to their boxplots. There were no outliers for either unpackaged or packaged. It is worth mentioning that all retail prices of the packaged apples were from supermarkets, while all but three of the unpackaged apples were recorded in organic food stores. The packaged organic apples have a wider retail price range, with retail prices between EUR 1.99/kg and 5.44/kg, than the unpackaged organic apples, which had retail prices ranging between EUR 3.29/kg and 3.99/kg. The arithmetic mean of the retail prices of the unpackaged apples was EUR 3.83/kg, and that of the packaged apples was 4.15/kg. On average, one pays 8% more for packaged organic apples than for unpackaged ones. For the non-organic apples, as determined and shown in Section 3.1.2, this is reversed, as one pays on average 32% more for the unpackaged variety. It is important to note, however, that the mean values of the packaged and unpackaged organic apples are not statistically significantly different. (However, the number of data sets was relatively low). In this case, the Eta coefficient has a value of 0.25, which means that there is a low correlation between the packaging type and the retail price for organic apples (Table 2). Likewise, the Eta square can be interpreted. Only 6% of the variation in retail price can be explained by the type of packaging (unpackaged/packaged).

3.1.4. Retail Price Difference between Organic and Non-Organic Apples

To determine the retail price difference between organic apples and non-organic apples, the arithmetic means for both variants were calculated. The retail prices of the products described in Section 2.2 were not considered.
The mean value for the non-organically grown apples was EUR 2.55/kg, and that of the organic apples was 3.92/kg (Figure 3). The mean values were statistically significantly different from each other. The price premium for organic apples based on the mean values was 54%. Figure 3 shows the retail price distribution of non-organic apples and organic apples as boxplots. It is striking that there were several outliers in the retail prices of organic apples, while there were none for the non-organic apples.

3.1.5. Retail Price versus Sales Quantity of Packaged Apples

Larger packaging sizes, with retail prices remaining the same, provide an indirect retail price reduction and a kind of volume discount [73]. The customer is “lured” into buying larger quantities with lower retail prices calculated per piece. To check whether this also applies to apples in food retailing, the retail price per quantity was examined as shown in the following diagram. Packaged non-organic apples and all packaged organic apples were included, except for special offers.
Figure 4 shows a scatter chart with a quantity/retail price ratio. Both organic apples (green) and non-organic apples (orange) are displayed. Most apples were sold in quantities of less than 1500 g. For sales quantities above 1500 g, the retail price per kilogram was below EUR 2 for all data. It is noticeable that there were no organic apples sold above a quantity of 1 kg. The average quantity of organic apples sold was 614 g, compared to 1150 g for non-organic apples. Consequently, the expensive organic products were sold in smaller quantities.
Since, in this case, we had two interval-scaled variables, the correlation between the retail price per kilogram and the quantity could be determined by Pearson’s correlation coefficient. The Pearson correlation coefficient can take values between −1, 0, and 1, whereby the closer the value is to −1 or 1, the stronger the correlation of the examined variables is [67]. Whether it is a negative or positive relationship is determined by the sign of the coefficient [67]. In this case, the coefficient took on a value of −0.65 (Table 2). Since the value was above 0.5 and had a negative sign, there was a strong and significant negative linear relationship between sales quantity and retail price per kilogram. This means that the retail price per kilogram decreases significantly when the quantity increases or, rather, the sales quantity increases, and when the retail price per kilogram decreases.

3.2. Tomatoes

3.2.1. Types of Packaging and Origin

With 89 datasets of tomatoes from the 12 different supermarkets and organic food stores, the second-most retail prices were recorded for tomatoes. Similarly to the organic apples, 34% of the recorded tomatoes were organically grown products and 66% were non-organically grown tomatoes. Retail prices ranged from a maximum of EUR 15.20/kg to a minimum of 4.98/kg. Due to data procurement in February and March 2022, the results are valid only for this period.
Five different types of packaging were observed for the tomatoes. Unpackaged tomatoes were most represented, with 36%, and tomatoes in plastic-wrapped cardboard baskets comprised 35%. Less frequently represented, in descending order, were tomatoes packaged in plastic trays with plastic bags (11%), in paper carrier bags or cardboard baskets (10%), and in plastic trays (8%). In comparison to apples, very few tomatoes originated in Germany (12%), and all these were labelled as regional products. Most tomatoes came from Spain (61%). The remaining 27% came from the Netherlands (10%), Morocco (8%), France (7%), and Tunisia (2%).

3.2.2. Unpackaged and Packaged Retail Prices: Non-Organic Tomatoes

The retail price investigation of packaged and unpackaged tomatoes was carried out separately for organic and non-organic tomatoes. In general, the procedure described in Section 2.2 also applies to the data analysis of tomatoes. The retail prices are shown graphically as boxplots in the following figures.
Figure 5 displays the boxplot for the unpackaged tomatoes in grey and the boxplot for the packaged tomatoes in orange. For the unpackaged tomatoes, there was an outlier at EUR 12.90/kg. The arithmetical mean of the unpackaged tomatoes was a retail price per kilogram of EUR 5.39/kg, and that of the packaged tomatoes was a retail price per kilogram of EUR 8.23/kg. Comparing the mean values, there was an average surcharge of 53% for packaged tomatoes.
It should also be noted that the mean values were statistically significantly different from each other (Table 3). However, it is also striking that there was a large retail price difference between large and small tomatoes. Different types of tomatoes can be grouped into more expensive small tomatoes, such as snack, cherry, and mini tomatoes, and cheaper large tomatoes, such as “roma” or “beef” tomatoes. On average, small tomatoes were twice as expensive as the large tomato varieties. As will be seen later, this difference is greater than that between unpackaged and packaged products.
For illustration, in Figure 6, the boxplots of the retail prices for packaged and unpackaged mini tomatoes and large tomatoes are displayed. To obtain a better picture of the actual retail price difference between packaged and unpackaged tomatoes, it is worth comparing the mean values only within the tomato categories. The arithmetic mean of the unpackaged mini tomatoes was EUR 11.40/kg, and that of the packaged variant was EUR 9.31/kg. However, the mean values were not statistically significantly different from each other. In comparison, the mean values for the large tomatoes were very low. The mean value of the unpackaged large tomatoes was EUR 4.34/kg, and that of the packaged tomatoes was EUR 4.98/kg. Again, the mean values were not statistically significantly different from each other. This alone contrasts with the previously determined statistically significant mean difference when mini tomatoes and normal sized tomatoes were not separated. By further examining the retail price differences between packaged and unpackaged tomatoes, it can be seen that large, packaged tomatoes were only 14% more expensive on average than the unpackaged ones, compared to the 53% shown in Figure 6. The unpackaged mini tomatoes were 23% more expensive than the packaged variety. Since there were only 2 different unpackaged mini tomato data sets and 26 for the packaged ones, and the mean price of the mini tomatoes was statistically significantly higher, it is reasonable to assume that the mean price of the packaged tomatoes would be significantly raised if mini and large tomatoes were not examined separately. The correlation measures of Eta and Eta-squared were very low in the cases of the separate comparisons, which means that there was only a small correlation between the packaging type and the retail price of the tomato (Table 3).

3.2.3. Unpackaged and Packaged Retail Prices: Organic Tomatoes

The analysis of the packaged and unpackaged organic tomatoes also followed the previously used approach. In total, there were 16 data sets of unpackaged organic tomatoes and 14 data sets of packaged organic tomatoes.
Figure 7 shows the boxplots of the two variants. It can be seen that there were no outliers in the boxplot of the unpackaged tomatoes (grey) or in the boxplot of the packaged tomatoes (orange). The mean value of the unpackaged tomatoes was EUR 7.30/kg and that of the packaged tomatoes was EUR 7.08/kg. This means that the organic unpackaged tomatoes were slightly more expensive. However, the mean values were not statistically significantly different from each other. For the organic tomatoes, the ratio of mini and large tomatoes was more similar for unpackaged and packaged tomatoes, so a separate analysis is not performed. Also, in this case, the Eta ( η = 0.05 ) and Eta squared values were very low ( η 2 = 0.002 ) (Table 3). Therefore, there was practically no relationship between the type of packaging and the retail prices of organic tomatoes.

3.2.4. Retail Price Difference between Organic and Non-Organic Tomatoes

To determine the premium price, the arithmetic means of the retail prices of organic and non-organic tomatoes were determined.
The average price of the organic tomatoes was EUR 6.85/kg, and that of the non-organic ones was EUR 5.43/kg (Figure 8). This equates to a 26% price premium paid when buying organic tomatoes. Figure 8 shows the retail price distribution of the organic and non-organic tomatoes. In both cases, there were no outliers. The retail price range of the organic tomatoes was wider than the retail price range of the non-organic tomatoes.

3.2.5. Retail Price versus Sales Quantity of Packaged Tomatoes

Packaged tomatoes are sold in quantities from 150 g to 1 kg. Since the retail price may change with a larger sales quantity, it is also useful to examine the retail price–volume relationship. Again, organic and non-organic tomatoes were evaluated.
Figure 9 shows a scatter diagram of the quantity–retail price distribution. The organic tomatoes are visible in green and the non-organic ones in orange. Most tomatoes were sold in quantities of 200–600 g. The retail price per kilogram ranged from EUR 2.38/kg to 18.95/kg. It can be seen that many different quantities were sold. Furthermore, even among the same quantities, strong retail price fluctuations were visible. For example, 250 g of tomatoes were sold between a maximum of EUR 12.2/kg and a minimum of EUR 3.96/kg. Organic tomatoes were sold in quantities of 250–500 g. This is in the range in which most tomatoes were sold. The expensive organic products were, therefore, not necessarily sold in small quantities. The Pearson correlation coefficient, which had a value of −0.53, shows a strong negative correlation between the quantity sold and the retail price per kilogram (Table 3). As in the case of the apples, the retail price per kilogram decreased with the quantity sold. However, to put the results into perspective, it must also be noted that mini tomatoes are usually sold only up to a quantity of 500 g. During the recording of the data, there was only one case in which mini tomatoes were sold in a quantity of 700 g. It is also clear that 68% of mini tomatoes were sold in quantities below 400 g. Since these are generally more expensive than large tomatoes, this naturally favours the distribution of the displayed retail price.

3.3. Peppers

3.3.1. Types of Packaging and Origin

A total of 63 different data sets of peppers were recorded. These were divided into mini peppers (German: “Minipaprika”), pointed peppers (German: “Spitzpaprika”), and block peppers. A total of 41% of the peppers were marked with the organic seal, making bell peppers the product with the greatest organic content. Retail prices per kilogram ranged from a minimum of EUR 2.58/kg to a maximum of EUR 22.9/kg. Due to the fact that data were procured in February and March 2022, the results are valid only for this period.
The most common type of packaging was the plastic bag, with 52%, and unpackaged peppers represented 45%. Only in 3% of the cases did the packaging consist of a cardboard tray and a plastic bag. Spain dominated the countries of origin of the peppers, with 90%. Aside from Spain, 8% of the peppers came from Morocco and 2% from Israel.

3.3.2. Packaged and Unpackaged Retail Prices: Non-Organic Peppers

The retail price analysis of non-organic peppers was initially performed for pointed peppers and block peppers combined. Mini peppers were not included due to their high retail prices. In addition, special discounts were also not included in the analysis.
In Figure 10, the boxplots of the unpackaged and packaged pointed and block peppers are shown. The unpackaged peppers had stronger retail price flexibility. The retail price range was between EUR 2.59/kg and 7.99/kg. Although the retail prices of the packaged peppers also ranged up to a retail price per kilogram of EUR 7.78/kg, this was an outlier. The arithmetic mean of the unpackaged peppers was EUR 4.72/kg, while that of the packaged ones is EUR 4.18/kg. This means that, on average, 13% higher retail prices were found for unpackaged peppers. However, the mean values were not statistically significantly different from each other.
Like the unified tomatoes, the Eta coefficient was also very low for the unified peppers, with a value of 0.17 (Table 4). To check whether separate comparisons of block and pointed peppers would yield a different result, it is worth comparing the mean values. The mean value of the pointed peppers was EUR 5.17/kg, and that of the block peppers was EUR 4.15/kg. This shows that there was a greater retail price difference between block peppers and pointed peppers. Since there was only one data set of unpackaged peppers and seven of packaged peppers, it makes sense to analyze the block peppers again separately.
The boxplots of the separate analyses of the block peppers are visible in Figure 11. The arithmetic mean of the unpackaged peppers was EUR 4.70/kg, and that of the packaged peppers was EUR 3.67/kg. The mean values were statistically, significantly different from each other. Consequently, unpackaged peppers were, on average, 28% more expensive than the packaged version. The Eta coefficient also took higher values when comparing the block peppers. The coefficient value of 0.40 was higher than the previously determined value of 0.17, which was obtained when block and pointed peppers were combined. Consequently, the retail prices of the pointed peppers interfered with the analysis, since there was a greater retail price difference between pointed peppers and block peppers, but there was an unequal amount of packaged and unpackaged varieties. This means that there was a stronger correlation between the type of packaging and the retail price of peppers than previously assumed (Table 4). With a value of 0.16, the Eta square indicates that 16% of the variance in retail price can be explained by the type of packaging.

3.3.3. Packaged and Unpackaged Retail Prices: Organic Peppers

Organic peppers can also be classified into pointed peppers and block peppers. In total, there were only five packaged peppers recorded during the data collection process. This contrasts with the seventeen unpackaged peppers documented in organic food stores and supermarkets.
In Figure 12, the boxplots of the organic peppers are visible, consisting of both pointed peppers and block peppers. In Figure 12, one can see the boxplot of the unpackaged organic peppers and the boxplot of the packaged peppers. Both mean values were about the same, with EUR 6.98/kg for the unpackaged and EUR 6.66/kg for the packaged organic tomatoes. This indicates a retail price surcharge of 5% for the unpackaged peppers. However, the mean values were not statistically significantly different from each other. There was one outlier for the unpackaged organic peppers, at a retail price per kilogram of EUR 9.90/kg. By evaluating the Eta coefficient η = 0.09 ( η 2 = 0.009 ) , it can be seen that there was a weak relationship between the type of packaging and the retail price (Table 4). Since the pointed peppers with a mean retail price of EUR 7.79/kg were significantly more expensive than the organic block peppers with a mean retail price per kilogram of EUR 6.53/kg, block peppers were, again, analysed separately from the pointed peppers.
Figure 13 shows the boxplots of the unpackaged (grey) and packaged (orange) block organic peppers. With the removal of the pointed peppers, 3 packaged organic block peppers and 13 unpackaged organic block peppers remained. The arithmetic mean of the unpackaged organic peppers in this case was EUR 6.87/kg, and that of the packaged organic peppers was EUR 5.05/kg. The mean values deviated statistically significant from each other, in contrast to the previous analysis. The surcharge of 36% for the unpackaged organic block peppers was significantly higher than the previously determined surcharge of 5% when pointed peppers and block peppers were unified. Thus, there was a much more significant retail price difference. This was also expressed by the Eta coefficient, which had a value of 0.69. Consequently, there was a high correlation between the packaging type and the retail price of organic block peppers. With an Eta square of 0.47, 47% of the variation in retail price could be explained by the type of packaging.

3.3.4. Retail Price Difference between Organic and Non-Organic Peppers

To determine the price premium for non-organic and organic peppers, pointed peppers and block peppers were again combined.
The arithmetic mean, which is necessary to determine the retail price difference, was EUR 7.15/kg for the non-organic peppers and 4.39/kg for the organic peppers (Figure 14). This results in a price premium of 63% for organic peppers. In Figure 14, the boxplots of the organic (blue) and non-organic (orange) peppers are visible. There was one outlier for the organic peppers (EUR 12.72/kg) and three for the non-organic peppers (EUR 7.99/kg; 7.78/kg; and 6.99/kg).

3.3.5. Retail Price versus Sales Quantity of Packaged Peppers

The analysis of the relationship between the quantity and the retail price of the peppers was carried out for the non-organic peppers as well as for the organic peppers. The latter were sold in quantities between 180 g and 500 g. The retail prices ranged from EUR 2.58/kg to 9.90/kg.
Figure 15 shows a scatter plot of the quantity–retail price ratio. The organic peppers are shown as green dots and the non-organic ones as orange dots. Two-thirds (67%) of the peppers were sold in quantities of 500 g. The other quantities sold occurred only once, except for quantities of 250 g and 180 g, in which peppers were offered twice. The quantities of organic peppers were strongly spread out, sold at a maximum of 500 g and at a minimum of 180 g. Consequently, the expensive organic peppers were not sold in smaller quantities than the non-organic peppers. With a value of −0.83, the Pearson correlation coefficient indicated that there was a strong negative correlation between the retail price per kilogram and the quantity (Table 4). Therefore, the greater the quantity sold, the lower the retail price. The correlation was statistically significant.

4. Discussion

The first thing to note is that, on average, the organic products were more expensive than the non-organic products for all the selected fruits and vegetables. The price premium ranged from 63% in the case of peppers to 54% in the case of apples and to 26% in the case of tomatoes. This can be explained by the greater efforts necessary to produce these products. Also, it might be that retailers add a premium for higher handling costs, less efficient selling, or higher price readiness of consumers of organic foods. Here, more research is necessary.
For the non-organic apples, the retail price of the unpackaged variant was, on average, 32% more expensive than that of the packaged variant. There was a moderate correlation between the type of packaging (packaged or unpackaged) and the retail price per kilogram. This is a paradoxical result, since packaging material causes extra costs of production and disposal. However, packaging allows for higher efficiency in selling; better marketing by the packaging; and, in some cases, longer shelf lives. This contrasts with organic apples. In this case, one pays, on average, 8% more for the packaged variant. There was only a weak correlation between the type of packaging and the retail price per kilogram. It can also be concluded that the mean values were very similar. It should be noted, however, that apples from organic food stores and organic apples from supermarkets were compared, since all packaged apples came from supermarkets and almost all unpackaged apples from organic food stores. This is because organic food stores only offer organic products and, therefore, they may possibly offer them at lower retail prices. To sell unpackaged food is often part of this strategy, and such organic food stores might implement unpackaged selling more easily. Hypothesis H1 was, therefore, fulfilled for the non-organic apples. For the organic apples, the packaged version was more expensive. Hypothesis H1 was not fulfilled.
In contrast to the apples, there are different types of tomatoes, which had strong retail price differences. For example, mini-tomatoes were significantly more expensive than large tomatoes. In the unified comparison of non-organic tomatoes, it was found that packaged tomatoes were 53% more expensive than unpackaged ones. The result was also a weak-to-moderate correlation between the type of packaging and the retail price per kilogram. However, since there was a large difference in the retail prices of the types of tomatoes, it was useful to conduct an analysis of the individual types of tomatoes. The result here was that for the large tomatoes, the packaged variety was, again, more expensive, with 15%. In the case of mini-tomatoes, the unpackaged tomatoes were 22% more expensive. By examining the correlation between the type of packaging and the retail price per kilogram, it can be seen, that for large tomatoes, there was only a slight correlation. However, the analysis of the mini tomatoes revealed a strong correlation between the type of packaging and the retail price per kilogram. In contrast to the high retail price difference when the tomatoes were unified, the retail price differences were smaller when the tomatoes were examined individually. Moreover, the correlation measures of the three analyses were strongly different. In the case of organic tomatoes, the unpackaged variety was also slightly more expensive, but only by 3%. As the low retail price difference suggests, there was also no notable relationship between the packaging type and the retail price per kilogram. Due to the more similar distribution of mini-tomatoes and regular tomatoes for the unpackaged and packaged organic tomatoes, these were only analysed on a unified basis. The analyses of the non-organic large and mini tomatoes led to different conclusions about the retail price for the packaging types. The reason for the partly opposite behaviour in comparison to apples is not known. One explanation involves the price strategies of supermarkets. For the large tomatoes, hypothesis H1 did not apply. For the mini tomatoes, it did apply. In the case of organic tomatoes, it can be stated that hypothesis H1 was also accurate.
As with tomatoes, there are different types of peppers with different retail price means. When standardizing the non-organic peppers, it was found that the unpackaged peppers were 13% more expensive than the packaged ones. However, there was a very small correlation between the type of packaging and the retail price per kilogram. Since there were few pointed peppers, a separate data analysis was performed only for the block peppers. For these, the unpackaged retail price was significantly more expensive than the retail price of the packaged block peppers. At 28%, the surcharge was more than twice as large as in the case of the unified analysis of the peppers. The relationship between the type of packaging and the retail price per kilogram was moderate for the block peppers. A summarized analysis was also performed for the organic peppers, and then a separate analysis was performed for the block peppers. When combined, the retail prices of the packaged and unpackaged peppers were similar, with a slight premium of 5%. for unpackaged peppers. Also, only a very weak correlation between packaging type and retail price per kilogram could be determined. This is in contrast to the clearer results of the block peppers. With 36%, the unpackaged organic block peppers were significantly more expensive. There was also a strong correlation between the type of packaging and the retail price per kilogram. Therefore, for organic and non-organic block peppers, it can be concluded that hypothesis H1 was true.
Discounters offer fruits at a lower cost compared to supermarkets. Discounters are price-oriented with a limited assortment and basically no service [74,75,76,77]. The results for the comparison of discounters and supermarkets are to be found in the Supplementary Materials.

5. Conclusions

Looking now at all of the results, for the non-organic products, in three out of four cases the unpackaged variant was more expensive. The products examined here were apples, large and mini tomatoes, and block peppers. Hypothesis H1, which stands for more expensive unpackaged and cheaper packaged products, was therefore fulfilled in 75% of the cases. For the organic products, a result in the direction of Hypothesis H1 can also be established. Here, hypothesis H1 was accurate in two out of three cases. However, in all categories, single results could be found that were opposite to the statistical characteristic values. From a practical point of view, unpackaged organic produce were not, in all cases and situations, more expensive than packaged non-organic food.
Nevertheless, it is important to note that the study involved a limited period of data collection. It should also be noted that some fruits and vegetables (e.g., raspberries) cannot be sold unpackaged. The results can, therefore, only be applied to the examples we have chosen.
For future studies, it would be relevant to utilize a higher number of datasets to improve the statistical validity. Furthermore, prices should be monitored more regularly to reflect seasonal price differences. Moreover, a better understanding of the contribution of packaging to the total cost and retail price is necessary. The significance of the results is limited because the collected data are very heterogenous. Throughout the collected data, there are characteristics such as packaging size, different packaging materials, different varieties, and different retail formats. A better understanding of prices and how they differ between unpacked and packed varieties would be possible if these characteristics were identical for unpacked and packed fruits and vegetables, e.g., Gala apples, in discounters. This would require a larger amount of data and information from producers, for instance, about packaging materials.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/world4030024/s1, Figure S1: Boxplots of unpacked (nu) and packed (np) non-organic apple prices separated in discounter (np = 20; nu = 11) and classic supermarket (np = 18; nu = 30), Figure S2: Boxplots of unpacked (nu) and packed (np) organic apple prices separated in discounter (np = 3) and classic supermarket (np = 8; nu = 30), Figure S3: Boxplots of unpacked (nu) and packed (np) non-organic tomatoes separated in discounter (np = 17, nu = 5) and classic supermarket (np = 11; nu = 26), Figure S4: Boxplots of unpacked (nu) and packed (np) organic tomatoes separated in discounter (np = 5) and classic supermarket (np = 9; nu = 16), Figure S5: Boxplots of unpacked (nu) and packed (np) non-organic peppers separated in discounter (np = 11; nu = 3) and classic supermarket (np = 10; nu = 10), Figure S6: Boxplots of unpacked (nu) and packed (np) organic peppers separated in discounter (np = 3; nu = 1) and classic supermarket (np = 2; nu = 18); Table S1: original data.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, S.F. and S.S.; methodology, S.F.; formal analysis, S.F.; investigation, S.F.; resources, S.S.; data curation, S.S.; writing—original draft preparation, S.F.; writing—review and editing, S.F., S.S. and T.D.; visualization, S.F.; supervision, S.S.; project administration, S.S.; funding acquisition, S.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was financially supported by the Munich University of Applied Sciences HM and the German Research Foundation (DFG) through the “Open Access Publishing” program.

Data Availability Statement

Original data are provided in the Supplementary Materials.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Mensink, G.; Truthmann, J.; Rabenberg, M.; Heidemann, C.; Haftenberger, M.; Schienkiewitz, A.; Richter, A. Obst- und Gemüsekonsum in Deutschland: Ergebnisse der Studie zur Gesundheit Erwachsener in Deutschland (DEGS1). Bundesgesundheitsblatt-Gesundh.-Gesundh. 2013, 56, 779–785. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  2. Wismer, W.V. Consumer Eating Habits and Perceptions of Fresh Produce Quality. Postharvest Handling: A Systems Approach; Elsevier Inc.: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2014; pp. 31–52. ISBN 978-012408137-6. [Google Scholar]
  3. Reynolds, T. “5-a-Day for better health” program is launched in Boston. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 1991, 83, 1538–1539. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Havas, S.; Heimendinger, J.; Reynolds, K.; Baranowski, T.; Nicklas, T.A.; Bishop, D.; Buller, D.; Sorensen, G.; Beresford, S.; Cowan, A.; et al. 5 a day for better health: A new research initiative. J. Am. Diet. Assoc. 1994, 94, 32–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Ashfield-Watt, P. Fruits and vegetables, 5+ a day: Are we getting the message across? Asia Pac. J. Clin. Nutr. 2006, 15, 245–252. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  6. Cullum, A. Increasing fruit and vegetable consumption: The 5 A DAY programme. Nutr. Bull. 2003, 28, 159–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Foerster, S.B.; Kizer, K.W.; DiSogra, L.K.; Bal, D.G.; Krieg, B.F.; Bunch, K.L. California’s ‘5 a day-for better health’! Campaign: An innovative population-based effort to effect large-scale dietary change. Am. J. Prev. Med. 1995, 11, 124–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Havas, S.; Heimendinger, J.; Damron, D.; Nicklas, T.A.; Cowan, A.; Beresford, S.; Sorensen, G.; Buller, D.; Bishop, D.; Baranowski, T.; et al. 5 A day for better health—Nine community research projects to increase fruit and vegetable consumption. Public Health Rep. 1995, 110, 68–79. [Google Scholar]
  9. Heimendinger, J.; Duyn, M.; Chapelsky, D.; Foerster, S.; Stables, G. The national 5 a day for better health program: A large-scale nutrition intervention. J. Public Health Manag. Pract. 1996, 2, 27–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Heimendinger, J.; Chapelsky, D. The National 5 a Day for Better Health Program. In Dietary Phytochemicals in Cancer Prevention and Treatment; Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology; Springer: Boston, MA, USA, 1996; Volume 401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Loughrey, K.A.; Balch, G.I.; Lefebvre, R.C.; Doner, L.; Johnston, C.; Eisner, E.; Hadley, L. Bringing 5 A Day consumers into focus: Qualitative use of consumer research to guide strategic decision making. J. Nutr. Educ. Behav. 1997, 29, 172–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Neill, K.; Allensworth, D.D. A Model to Increase Consumption of Fruit and Vegetables by Implementing the “5-A-Day” Initiative. J. Sch. Health 1994, 64, 150–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Thompson, B.; Shannon, J.; Beresford, S.A.; Jacobson, P.E.; Ewings, J.A. Implementation aspects of the Seattle “5 a days” intervention project: Strategies to help employees make dietary changes. Top. Clin. Nutr. 1995, 11, 58–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. DeStatis. Erntemenge Baumobst. 2022. Available online: https://www.destatis.de/DE/Themen/Branchen-Unternehmen/Landwirtschaft-Forstwirtschaft-Fischerei/Obst-Gemuese-Gartenbau/_inhalt.html#238424 (accessed on 1 June 2023).
  15. BMEL. BMEL-Statistik: Obst, Gemüse, Zitrusfrüchte, Schalen- und Trockenobst. Available online: https://www.bmel-statistik.de/ernaehrung-fischerei/versorgungsbilanzen/obst-gemuese-zitrusfruechte-schalen-und-trockenobst (accessed on 26 May 2022).
  16. DeStatis. Flächen und Erntemengen im Marktobstbau—Statistisches Bundesamt, 2022. DeStatis Statistisches Bundesamt. Available online: https://www.destatis.de/DE/Themen/Branchen-Unternehmen/Landwirtschaft-Forstwirtschaft-Fischerei/Obst-Gemuese-Gartenbau/Tabellen/flaechen-erntemengen-marktobstanbau.html (accessed on 26 May 2022).
  17. Runge, F.; Lang, H. Anzeige von Lebensmittelverluste in der Landwirtschaft durch Ästhetik-Ansprüche an Obst und Gemüse; Berichte über Landwirtschaft; Bundesministerium für Ernährung und Landwirtschaft (BMEL): Berlin, Germany, 2016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Boßow-Thies, S.; Preuß, M.; Schwarz, J. Acceptance of Unpackaged Food Products. J. Food Prod. Mark. 2021, 27, 127–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Johnson, S.L.; Sommer, R.; Mayes, L. Prices of Unpackaged and Packaged Foods. J. Consum. Aff. 1985, 19, 305–315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Dunford, E.K.; Farrand, C.; Huffman, M.D.; Raj, T.S.; Shahid, M.; Ni Mhurchu, C.; Neal, B.; Johnson, C. Availability, healthiness, and price of packaged and unpackaged foods in India: A cross-sectional study. Nutr. Health 2022, 28, 571–579. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Doser, J.G., Jr. How safe are self-serve unpackaged foods? J. Environ. Health 1999, 61, 29–32. [Google Scholar]
  22. Gross, K.C.; Wang, C.Y.; Saltveit, M. The commercial storage of fruits, vegetables, and florist and nursery stocks. In Agriculture Handbook; United States Department of Agriculture: Washington, DC, USA, 2004. [Google Scholar]
  23. Valero, D.; Serrano, M. Postharvest Biology and Technology for Preserving Fruit Quality; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2010; ISBN 9781439802670. [Google Scholar]
  24. Wilson, C.L. Intelligent and Active Packaging for Fruits and Vegetables; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2007; ISBN 9781420008678. [Google Scholar]
  25. Rooney, M.L. Active packaging: Science and application. In Engineering and Food for the 21st Century; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2002; pp. 533–541. ISBN 9781420010169. [Google Scholar]
  26. Bovi, G.G.; Rux, G.; Caleb, O.J.; Herppich, W.B.; Linke, M.; Rauh, C.; Mahajan, P.V. Measurement and modelling of transpiration losses in packaged and unpackaged strawberries. Biosyst. Eng. 2018, 174, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Kittemann, D.; Neuwald, D.A.; Streif, J.; Rux, G.; Linke, M.; Geyer, M.; Amodio, M.L.; Colelli, G. Studies on the optimization of air flows in apple storage rooms. Acta Hortic. 2015, 1071, 603–608. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Baltaci, D.; Linke, M.; Geyer, M. Transpiration loss of fresh produce in transport packages—A base for a shelf life prediction model. In Acta Horticulturae; International Society for Horticultural Science: Leuven, Belgium, 2010; pp. 1351–1356. ISBN 05677572. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Jalali, A.; Linke, M.; Geyer, M.; Mahajan, P.V. Shelf life prediction model for strawberry based on respiration and transpiration processes. Food Packag. Shelf Life 2020, 25, 100525. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Kadzińska, J.; Janowicz, M.; Kalisz, S.; Bryś, J.; Lenart, A. An overview of fruit and vegetable edible packaging materials. Packag. Technol. Sci. 2019, 32, 483–495. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Ali, A.; Wei, Y.Z.; Mustafa, M.A. Exploiting Propolis as an Antimicrobial Edible Coating to Control Post-harvest Anthracnose of Bell Pepper. Packag. Technol. Sci. 2015, 28, 173–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Eroglu, E.; Torun, M.; Dincer, C.; Topuz, A. Influence of Pullulan-Based Edible Coating on Some Quality Properties of Strawberry During Cold Storage. Packag. Technol. Sci. 2014, 27, 831–838. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Garcia, L.C.; Pereira, L.M.; de Luca Sarantópoulos, C.I.G.; Hubinger, M.D. Effect of Antimicrobial Starch Edible Coating on Shelf-Life of Fresh Strawberries. Packag. Technol. Sci. 2012, 25, 413–425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Aday, M.S.; Caner, C. Understanding the effects of various edible coatings on the storability of fresh cherry. Packag. Technol. Sci. 2010, 23, 441–456. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Hebishy, E.; Tas, A.A. 4-hexylresorcinol and sodium metabisulphite-based edible coatings for avocado shelf-life extension. Appl. Food Res. 2023, 3, 100289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Firdous, N.; Moradinezhad, F.; Farooq, F.; Dorostkar, M. Advances in formulation, functionality, and application of edible coatings on fresh produce and fresh-cut products: A review. Food Chem. 2023, 407, 135186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Hauser, C.; Sentürk Parreidt, T.; Kowalska, U.; Suminska, P. Shelf-life extension of fresh produce by edible coating. Ital. J. Food Sci. 2015, 28, 41–45. [Google Scholar]
  38. Jama, S.O.; Fawole, O.A.; Opara, U.L.; Ambaw, A. Characterization and Engineering Analysis of Properties of Edible Films. In V International Symposium on Pomegranate and Minor Mediterranean Fruits 1349; International Society For Horticultural Science: Leuven, Belgium, 2022; pp. 455–460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Oyom, W.; Zhang, Z.; Bi, Y.; Tahergorabi, R. Application of starch-based coatings incorporated with antimicrobial agents for preservation of fruits and vegetables: A review. Prog. Org. Coat. 2022, 166, 106800. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Rux, G.; Labude, C.; Herppich, W.B.; Geyer, M. Investigation on the potential of applying bio-based edible coatings for horticultural products exemplified with cucumbers. Curr. Res. Food Sci. 2023, 6, 100407. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Kortum, C. Unverpackt-Konzepte im Lebensmitteleinzelhandel. Schriftenreihe Handelsmanagement Whitepaper #8; DHBW: Heilbronn, Germany, 2021; p. 57. Available online: https://handel-dhbw.de/schriftenreihe/whitepaper/unverpackt-konzepte-im-lebensmitteleinzelhandel/ (accessed on 1 January 2023).
  42. PWC. Verpackungsfreie Lebensmittel—Nische Oder Trend? Verbraucherbefragung 2015; PWC: London, UK, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  43. Rana, J.; Paul, J. Consumer behavior and purchase intention for organic food: A review and research agenda. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2017, 38, 157–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Jose, H.; Kuriakose, V. Emotional or logical: Reason for consumers to buy organic food products. Br. Food J. 2021, 123, 3999–4016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Wang, J.; Xue, Y.; Liu, T. Consumer motivation for organic food consumption: Health consciousness or herd mentality. Front. Public Health 2023, 10, 1042535. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Kriwy, P.; Mecking, R.-A. Health and environmental consciousness, costs of behaviour and the purchase of organic food. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 2012, 36, 30–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Azzurra, A.; Massimiliano, A.; Angela, M. Measuring sustainable food consumption: A case study on organic food. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2019, 17, 95–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Kusumaningsih, D.; Irianto, H.; Antriyandarti, E. Effects of health consciousness and environmental attitude on intention towards organic food purchase. IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2019, 633, 12052. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Katt, F.; Meixner, O. Is It All about the Price? An Analysis of the Purchase Intention for Organic Food in a Discount Setting by Means of Structural Equation Modeling. Foods 2020, 9, 458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  50. Kamboj, S.; Matharu, M. Modelling the predictors of consumers’ willingness to pay premium price for sustainable products. J. Asia Bus. Stud. 2021, 15, 559–583. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Hanke, G. Bio-Lebensmittel: Marktentwicklung und Freiwillige Instrumente zur Besseren Marktdurchdringung; Study; Öko-Institut e.V.: Freiburg, Germany, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  52. Spiller, V.A. Zielgruppen im Markt für Bio-Lebensmittel: Ein Forschungsüberblick. 2006. Available online: https://www.uni-goettingen.de/de/document/download/aca1194d9bd45c8d6cac6af2584cff3e.pdf/Zielgruppen%20Endversion.pdf (accessed on 1 January 2023).
  53. Alberto de Morais Watanabe, E.; Alfinito, S.; Castelo Branco, T.V.; Felix Raposo, C.; Athayde Barros, M. The Consumption of Fresh Organic Food: Premium Pricing and the Predictors of Willingness to Pay. J. Food Prod. Mark. 2023, 29, 41–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Faltins, R. Bio-Lebensmittel in Deutschland: Kaufbarrieren und Vermarktung; Diplomica Verl.: Hamburg, Germany, 2010; ISBN 978-3-8366-8562-7. [Google Scholar]
  55. Loose, S.M. Der Preis als Kaufbarriere? Eine Analyse der Preisbereitschaft für gesunde Lebensmittel. In Angewandtes Gesundheitsmarketing; Hoffmann, S., Schwarz, U., Mai, R., Eds.; Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden: Wiesbaden, Germany, 2012; pp. 209–222. ISBN 978-3-8349-4034-6/978-3-8349-4035-3. [Google Scholar]
  56. Forman, J.; Silverstein, J.; Committee on Nutrition; Council on Environmental Health; Bhatia, J.J.S.; Abrams, S.A.; Corkins, M.R.; de Ferranti, S.D.; Golden, N.H.; Paulson, J.A.; et al. Organic Foods: Health and Environmental Advantages and Disadvantages. Pediatrics 2012, 130, e1406–e1415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  57. Spiller, A.; Enneking, U. Analyse des Kaufverhaltens von Selten- und Gelegenheitskäufern und ihrer Bestimmungsgründe für/Gegen den Kauf von Ökoprodukten; Abschlussbericht: Freising, Germany, 2004. [Google Scholar]
  58. Li, S.; Kallas, Z. Meta-analysis of consumers’ willingness to pay for sustainable food products. Appetite 2021, 163, 105239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Plaßmann, S.; Hamm, U. Kaufbarriere Preis?—Analyse von Zahlungsbereitschaft und Kaufverhalten bei Öko-Lebensmitteln. 2009; 157. Available online: https://orgprints.org/id/eprint/15745/1/15745-06OE119-uni_kassel-hamm-2009-kaufbarriere_preis.pdf (accessed on 1 January 2023).
  60. Statista GmbH. Johannes-Brahms-Platz 1, 20355 Hamburg. Pro-Kopf-Konsum von Gemüse in Deutschland nach Art in den Jahren 2020/21 und 2021/22. Hamburg, 2023. Available online: https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/318586/umfrage/pro-kopf-konsum-von-gemuese-in-deutschland-nach-art/ (accessed on 1 June 2023). (In Kilogramm).
  61. Statista GmbH. Johannes-Brahms-Platz 1, 20355 Hamburg. Pro-Kopf-Konsum von Obst in Deutschland nach Art in den Jahren 2010/11 bis 2021/22. Hamburg, 2023. Available online: https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/247425/umfrage/die-beliebtesten-obstsorten-der-deutschen/ (accessed on 1 June 2023). (In Kilogramm).
  62. Statista GmbH. Johannes-Brahms-Platz 1, 20355 Hamburg. Pro-Kopf-Konsum von Paprika und Pfefferoni in Österreich in den Jahren 2006/07 bis 2021/22. Hamburg, 2023. Available online: https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/436764/umfrage/pro-kopf-konsum-von-paprika-und-pfefferoni-in-oesterreich/ (accessed on 1 June 2023). (In Kilogramm).
  63. Nayik, G.A.; Muzaffar, K. Developments in packaging of fresh fruits- shelf life perspective: A review. Am. J. Food Sci. Nutr. Res. 2014, 1, 34–39. [Google Scholar]
  64. Korte, I.; Albrecht, A.; Mittler, M.; Waldhans, C.; Kreyenschmidt, J. Influence of different bio-based and conventional packaging trays on the quality loss of fresh cherry tomatoes during distribution and storage. Packag. Technol. Sci. 2023, 36, 569–583. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Sirivatanapa, S. Packaging and transportation of fruits and vegetables for better marketing. In Postharvest Management of Fruit and Vegetables in the Asia-Pacific Region; Asian Productivity Organization: Tokyo, Japan, 2006; ISBN 92-833-7051-1. [Google Scholar]
  66. Schiefer, H.; Schiefer, F. Statistik für Ingenieure: Eine Einführung mit Beispielen aus der Praxis; Springer Vieweg: Wiesbaden, Germany, 2018; ISBN 978-3-658-20639-0. [Google Scholar]
  67. Kronthaler, F. Statistik Angewandt mit dem R Commander: Datenanalyse ist (k)eine Kunst; 2. Überarbeitete und Ergänzte Auflage; Springer Spektrum: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2021; ISBN 978-3-662-63604-6. [Google Scholar]
  68. Benninghaus, H. Deskriptive Statistik: Eine Einführung für Sozialwissenschaftler; 11. Aufl.; VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften: Wiesbaden, Germany, 2007; ISBN 978-3-531-34607-6. [Google Scholar]
  69. Carlson, A.; Jaenicke, E. Changes in Retail Organic Price Premiums from 2004 to 2010. No. 242448. Available online: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:ags:uersrr:242448 (accessed on 1 January 2023).
  70. Pawlewicz, A. Change of Price Premiums Trend for Organic Food Products: The Example of the Polish Egg Market. Agriculture 2020, 10, 35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  71. Loke, M.K.; Xu, X.; Leung, P. Estimating organic, local, and other price premiums in the Hawaii fluid milk market. J. Dairy Sci. 2015, 98, 2824–2830. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  72. Cohen, J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1988; ISBN 978-0-203-77158-7/978-1-134-74270-7. [Google Scholar]
  73. Scheubrein, B.; Jakob, M.A.-K. Food Waste—Wertschätzung von Lebensmitteln im Handel; 1. Auflage; BoD—Books on Demand: Norderstedt, Germany, 2021; ISBN 978-3-7543-5140-6. [Google Scholar]
  74. González-Benito, Ó. Spatial competitive interaction of retail store formats: Modeling proposal and empirical results. J. Bus. Res. 2005, 58, 457–466. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Tordjman, A. European Retailing. Int. J. Retail. Distrib. Manag. 1994, 22, 3–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Solgaard, H.S.; Hansen, T. A hierarchical Bayes model of choice between supermarket formats. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2003, 10, 169–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Zielke, S. How price image dimensions influence shopping intentions for different store formats. Eur. J. Mark. 2010, 44, 748–770. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
World 04 00024 g001 550
Figure 1. Retail prices of unpackaged (n = 41) and packaged (n = 38) non-organic apples.
Figure 1. Retail prices of unpackaged (n = 41) and packaged (n = 38) non-organic apples.
World 04 00024 g001
World 04 00024 g002 550
Figure 2. Retail prices of unpackaged (n = 30) and packaged (n = 11) organic apples.
Figure 2. Retail prices of unpackaged (n = 30) and packaged (n = 11) organic apples.
World 04 00024 g002
World 04 00024 g003 550
Figure 3. Retail prices of organic (n = 78) and non-organic (n = 40) apples.
Figure 3. Retail prices of organic (n = 78) and non-organic (n = 40) apples.
World 04 00024 g003
World 04 00024 g004 550
Figure 4. Retail price versus sales quantity for packaged organic (n = 11), green dots; and non-organic (n = 43) apples, orange dots.
Figure 4. Retail price versus sales quantity for packaged organic (n = 11), green dots; and non-organic (n = 43) apples, orange dots.
World 04 00024 g004
World 04 00024 g005 550
Figure 5. Retail prices of unpackaged (n = 16) and packaged non-organic (n = 43) tomatoes.
Figure 5. Retail prices of unpackaged (n = 16) and packaged non-organic (n = 43) tomatoes.
World 04 00024 g005
World 04 00024 g006 550
Figure 6. Retail prices of unpackaged (n = 2) and packaged (n = 26) mini-tomatoes; and unpackaged (n = 13) and packaged (n = 13) large tomatoes.
Figure 6. Retail prices of unpackaged (n = 2) and packaged (n = 26) mini-tomatoes; and unpackaged (n = 13) and packaged (n = 13) large tomatoes.
World 04 00024 g006
World 04 00024 g007 550
Figure 7. Boxplots of unpackaged (n = 16) and packaged (n = 14) organic tomatoes.
Figure 7. Boxplots of unpackaged (n = 16) and packaged (n = 14) organic tomatoes.
World 04 00024 g007
World 04 00024 g008 550
Figure 8. Retail prices of organic (n = 27) and non-organic (n = 43) tomatoes.
Figure 8. Retail prices of organic (n = 27) and non-organic (n = 43) tomatoes.
World 04 00024 g008
World 04 00024 g009 550
Figure 9. Retail price versus sales quantity for organic (n = 12) and non-organic (n = 45) packaged tomatoes.
Figure 9. Retail price versus sales quantity for organic (n = 12) and non-organic (n = 45) packaged tomatoes.
World 04 00024 g009
World 04 00024 g010 550
Figure 10. Retail prices of unpackaged (n = 13) and packaged (n = 21) non-organic peppers.
Figure 10. Retail prices of unpackaged (n = 13) and packaged (n = 21) non-organic peppers.
World 04 00024 g010
World 04 00024 g011 550
Figure 11. Retail prices of unpackaged (n = 12) and packaged (n = 14) non-organic block peppers.
Figure 11. Retail prices of unpackaged (n = 12) and packaged (n = 14) non-organic block peppers.
World 04 00024 g011
World 04 00024 g012 550
Figure 12. Retail prices of unpackaged (n = 18) and packaged (n = 5) organic peppers.
Figure 12. Retail prices of unpackaged (n = 18) and packaged (n = 5) organic peppers.
World 04 00024 g012
World 04 00024 g013 550
Figure 13. Boxplots of unpackaged (n = 13) and packaged (n = 3) organic block peppers.
Figure 13. Boxplots of unpackaged (n = 13) and packaged (n = 3) organic block peppers.
World 04 00024 g013
World 04 00024 g014 550
Figure 14. Retail prices of organic (n = 24) and non-organic (n = 34) peppers.
Figure 14. Retail prices of organic (n = 24) and non-organic (n = 34) peppers.
World 04 00024 g014
World 04 00024 g015 550
Figure 15. Retail price versus sales quantity for organic (n = 5) and non-organic (n = 22) packaged peppers.
Figure 15. Retail price versus sales quantity for organic (n = 5) and non-organic (n = 22) packaged peppers.
World 04 00024 g015
Table
Table 1. Variables and scales.
Table 1. Variables and scales.
VariableScale
Type of packagingNominal
Type of farmingNominal
OriginNominal
Retail priceInterval
QuantityInterval
Table
Table 2. Correlation table for apples.
Table 2. Correlation table for apples.
Correlation of retail price and packaging type: non-organic apples
η η 2p-valueData sets
0.510.261.7 × 10−679
Correlation of retail price and packaging type: organic apples
η η 2p-valueData sets
0.250.060.1241
Correlation of retail price and sales quantity of packaged apples
RR2p-valueData sets
−0.650.438.29 × 10−854
Table
Table 3. Correlation table for tomatoes.
Table 3. Correlation table for tomatoes.
Correlation of retail price and packaging type: non-organic tomatoes
η η 2p-valueData sets
0.340.120.00859
Correlation of retail price and packaging type: non-organic large and mini tomatoes
η η 2p-valueData sets
0.170.030.428
0.160.030.4326
Correlation of retail price and packaging type: organic tomatoes
η η 2p-valueData sets
0.050.0020.830
Correlation of retail price and sales quantity of packaged tomatoes
RR2p-valueData sets
−0.530.291.62 × 10−557
Table
Table 4. Correlation tables for pepper.
Table 4. Correlation tables for pepper.
Correlation of retail price and packaging type: non-organic peppers
η η 2p-valueData sets
0.170.030.3134
Correlation of retail price and packaging type: non-organic block peppers
η η 2p-valueData sets
0.40.160.04126
Correlation of retail price and packaging type: organic peppers
η η 2p-valueData sets
0.090.0090.6723
Correlation of retail price and packaging type: organic block peppers
η η 2p-valueData sets
0.690.470.00316
Correlation of retail price and sales quantity of packaged peppers
RR2p-valueData sets
−0.830.681.19 × 10−727
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Fritschi, S.; Decker, T.; Sängerlaub, S. Retail Price Differences between Packaged and Unpackaged Fruits (Apples) and Vegetables (Tomatoes, Peppers). World 2023, 4, 368-392. https://doi.org/10.3390/world4030024

AMA Style

Fritschi S, Decker T, Sängerlaub S. Retail Price Differences between Packaged and Unpackaged Fruits (Apples) and Vegetables (Tomatoes, Peppers). World. 2023; 4(3):368-392. https://doi.org/10.3390/world4030024

Chicago/Turabian Style

Fritschi, Samuel, Thomas Decker, and Sven Sängerlaub. 2023. "Retail Price Differences between Packaged and Unpackaged Fruits (Apples) and Vegetables (Tomatoes, Peppers)" World 4, no. 3: 368-392. https://doi.org/10.3390/world4030024

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop