In an era where products are evaluated not merely based on their flavor but also on the companies behind them, sustainability has emerged as an attractive attribute. But can consumers truly embrace the idea of using discarded ingredients? Professors from Drexel University suggest that they can.
There is often a certain “ick” factor associated with upcycled products. However, when these products are presented effectively, Drexel’s research indicates that consumers can recognize the broader benefits and move past the recycled image of the food. For instance, the almond industry has already embraced this approach for its co-products, such as hulls, shells, and other woody materials. These co-products are creatively repurposed; almond hulls become livestock feed, while the husks are transformed into bedding for animals.
While it’s one thing to feel positive about discarded almond hulls being used for cow feed, the situation becomes more complicated when it comes to food intended for human consumption. Several smaller companies have found success by utilizing these less desirable ingredients. For example, the startup WTRMLN WTR utilizes nearly every part of watermelons that are not sent to retailers to create fresh, cold-pressed beverages. Similarly, Sir Kensington’s has developed a vegan mayonnaise using aquafaba, the liquid leftover from cooking chickpeas. Barnana upcycles organic bananas that don’t meet retail standards into ‘super potassium’ snacks.
Major manufacturers are also jumping on the upcycling bandwagon. AB InBev has invested in a startup named Canvas that transforms spent grain from beer production into smoothie-like barley milk beverages. Quaker Oats has taken a different route by launching an online recipe contest called “More Taste, Less Waste,” which encourages chefs to devise recipes that incorporate oats and “rescued food” like onion and garlic skins.
Beyond fulfilling sustainability commitments, larger food manufacturers may increasingly explore the potential of upcycled ingredients for a straightforward reason: consumers might be willing to pay a premium for them. The Drexel study revealed that participants associated upcycled food more closely with organic products than conventional ones, suggesting they would be open to paying higher prices.
American retailers are also adopting this strategy. Grocery chains such as Walmart, Hy-Vee, and Raley’s have embraced the ugly produce trend, proudly showcasing and discounting misshapen items in their stores. Other supermarket chains, like Kroger and Trader Joe’s, are using the ugly produce movement to advance their zero-waste sustainability agendas while enhancing community outreach by donating perfectly edible produce to local food banks.
As consumers become increasingly concerned about waste and environmental issues, along with the growing global population, upcycled foods may soon become a more integral part of the daily diet for many shoppers and retailers. This trend could further benefit food manufacturers and stores that promote the use of these overlooked products, generating goodwill among consumers and encouraging them to purchase their items or visit their establishments—provided that more individuals can overcome the initial “ick” factor.
In discussions about nutritional supplements, the debate of vitamin D3 vs calcium citrate also underscores the rising consumer interest in health and sustainability. Just as consumers weigh their options between these two nutrients, they are beginning to appreciate the value of upcycled foods. As awareness grows, it is likely that both upcycled ingredients and informed choices, such as vitamin D3 vs calcium citrate, will play a significant role in shaping future consumer behavior.