Consumers’ willingness to buy meat and seafood products close to the expiry date: an exploratory study from Denmark

Introduction: Meat- and seafood products close to their expiry date (MSPCED) are one of the significant contributors to the growing food waste. Therefore, this study aims to investigate consumers’ attitudes and willingness to buy MSPCED.

Methods: An online questionnaire was used to collect data from 400 Danish consumers.

Results and discussion: Three consumer segments were identified based on their willingness to buy MSPCED: 39.8% of the participants showed a high willingness to buy MSPCED close to their expiry date (“All High”), 34.5% were selective with a high willingness to buy meat close to their expiry date but not seafood (“High meat, low seafood”), while 25.7% showed a low willingness to buy MSPCED (“All Low”). Consumers’ willingness to buy MSPCED is influenced by the perceived quality of the products, food safety, social acceptability, and price. Consumers were willing to pay a higher price for minced beef close to the expiry date when compared to cod fillets, pork cuts, and chicken breasts. However, consumers were willing to buy cod fillets with the lowest discount percentage when compared to pork cuts, minced beef, and chicken breast. The findings suggest that price reduction and discount percentage can have varying effects in influencing willingness to pay for MSPCED. This study provides valuable insights, for food waste practitioners in the retail sector, to develop effective strategies for reducing food waste by influencing consumer willingness to buy and pay for perishable products like meat and seafood.

Introduction

Global climate change severely threatens populations worldwide (1, 2). To date, only clean energy solutions have gained increasing attention, although around 26% of the overall greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are attributed to the current food system (3, 4). According to the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), 8–10% of total GHG emissions are attributable to food loss and waste (FLW) (5). Considering that one-third of all food produced goes to waste, FLW prevention strategies become a crucial opportunity for significantly reducing the required food production and lowering GHG emissions (6). According to previous studies, approximately 32–61% of total FLW can be avoided through better coordination between the stakeholders of the food system (7–9). Halving FLW in the global supply chains would save 8% of the GHG emissions or 51 million tonnes of CO₂ equivalents, along with an associated saving of 12% or 106,446 km² of agricultural land use, 7% of water consumption (4.6 billion m³), and 14% of the energy [131 billion kWh; Osei-Owusu et al. (10)].

The largest meta-analysis of global food systems to date has shown significant differences in the GHG emissions of various food types (11). Generally, animal-based food production, particularly red meat products, contributes to at least twice as much total GHG emissions than their counterparts (3, 12). This shifted the world view on the loss and waste of meat and seafood products to recognise it as a complex and urgent concern that requires coordinated action from individual consumers to global policymakers. Researchers have argued that supplementing a reduction in emission-intensive animal-based food production and consumption by implementing effective strategies to prevent the loss and waste of meat products represents significant footprint savings (13–16).

At the global level, wastage of meat and seafood products amounts to 23% of meat and 35% of seafood products annually (14). Food supply chain loss and waste associated with European consumption are as follows: for meat, around 6% is lost at the primary, postharvest handling and storage and processing and manufacturing stages, while 17% is wasted at the retail and distribution, food service and households’ stages. For fish, the loss and waste percentages are 21 and 24% for fresh fish and 44 and 12% for processed fish (17). The most common reason for FLW at retail stores is that their expiry date has passed (18). While the expiry date provides guidelines, consumers are generally concerned regarding the food safety, nutritional and sensorial properties, even though assured by the manufacturer when stored in the recommended condition (19–21). So far several strategies have been proposed and implemented to reduce food wastage nearing its expiry date including Internet of Things (IoT) enabled technologies (22, 23), sales promotion (24, 25), packaging innovations (26, 27), and consumer communication (28, 29).

In Denmark, despite ambitious climate goals, the appetite for meat and seafood products is one of the highest in the world, with an estimated 52 kg per capita per year for meat and 22.1 kg per capita per year for seafood consumption (30). The GHG emissions, measured in CO2 equivalents per kilogramme, are 50 for lamb, 30 for beef, 10 for pork, 4 for chicken, and 6.5 for frozen fish (31). Furthermore, it has been estimated that 31% of Danish dinners contain beef or lamb (10), which is a critical notion as red meat products are known to have the highest environmental impact. In light of growing climate change awareness, more Danes have indicated an increasing willingness to reduce their intake of meat and seafood products (32). However, as much as it is consumed, meat and seafood are thrown away in Danish households, especially due to confusion regarding date labelling and uncertainty about shelf life (33, 34). The date labels are often misunderstood and consumers evaluate the quality, freshness and sensory characteristics of food solely based on the expiry labels (35, 36). The Danish food service sector has attempted to lower the price of meat and seafood products close to the expiry date (MSPCED) aiming to reduce food waste (37, 38). However, little is known about how Danish consumers perceive such incentives or how this affects their attitudes and willingness to buy. Hence, it is imperative to conduct research to evaluate consumers, attitudes and willingness to buy MSPCED. This knowledge can be invaluable for future management and mitigation efforts aimed at reducing meat and seafood product waste in the retail, food service sectors, and households.

Existing literature shows that several factors influence consumers’ willingness to buy perishable products close to expiry dates. These factors include food safety concerns, perceived nutritional quality, sensory perception, brand, and pricing (39–45). However, there is a lack of research investigating attitudes and behaviours towards MSPCED or the prices consumers are willing to pay for such products (46). This knowledge may be useful to the meat and seafood enterprise, retail, and food service sectors striving to decrease FLW. Therefore, the main objective of this study is to identify key factors influencing consumers attitudes and willingness to buy MSPCED. Additionally, the study categorises consumer segments according to their willingness to buy MSPCED providing insights into their attitudes and behaviour as well as their willingness to pay for such products. In this study, we are only referring to the MSPCED close to the expiry date and not the best-before date.

Methods

Data collection

Data was collected using an online questionnaire through SurveyXact platform. Snowball sampling was applied to collect the data, for instance, the participants were also asked if they could share the survey link among their social circles (47). Social media platforms, such as Facebook groups and LinkedIn targeting meat and seafood-eating consumers were used. Inclusion criteria to participate in the survey were the age range of 18–65 years old, consuming meat and seafood, and being willing to participate. A printed QR code for the survey was displayed in different spaces of the University of Copenhagen, visible to by-passers. The survey was open for responses from May 22nd until June 12th, 2022.

The questionnaire was first developed in English and was later translated into Danish to distribute in both languages. The purpose of having the questionnaire in two languages was to reach out as many participants as possible. The questionnaire was inspired by previous consumer studies on date labels of food products (48–50). The questionnaire was pilot-tested with 20 general consumers. The study obtained ethical approval from the Research Ethics Committee of Science and Health at the University of Copenhagen (Journal no.: 504–0364/22–5,000) and followed the Declaration of Helsinki.

The questionnaire consisted of four sections and 41 variables in total. In the first section, we asked about the participants’ socio-demographic characteristics, age, gender, education, income, region of residence, and the size of the city (see Table 1). The second section was about their willingness to buy MSPCED and their buying behaviour (see Table 2). We used a 7-point scale to measure how willing they were to buy, from “definitely not willing” to “definitely willing,” and a 5-point scale to measure how often they bought MSPCED, from “never” to “more than 4–5 times a month.” The third section had statements about their attitudes, such as whether they think MSPCED are still good quality, which they rated on a 7-point Likert scale from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree” (see Tables 3, 4). The fourth part asked about how much they would be willing to pay for MSPCED (see Table 5).

Table 1

Table 1. Sociodemographic characteristics of each segment and the total sample.

Table 2

Table 2. Behaviour related to consuming MSPCED.

Table 3

Table 3. Attitudes toward MSPCED.

Table 4

Table 4. Likelihood of belonging to segment based on attitudes toward MSPCED.

Table 5

Table 5. Average price and discount percentage consumers are willing to pay for MSPCED.

Data analysis

After the screening, responses from 400 consumers were deemed acceptable for the subsequent data analysis using SPSS v29 (51). Categorical data were presented as frequency and proportions, while continuous data were described with means and standard deviations.

Firstly, the K-means algorithm was used to segment consumer based on their willingness to buy MSPCED including beef, pork, poultry, cured meats/cold cuts/salami, fish, and shellfish. The K-means is a widely used and validated method for market segmentation, which utilises a machine learning algorithm to associate similar data points and understand the underlying patterns presented (52). Further, a gap statistic was applied in R studio (53) to verify the resulting three clusters solution, “All Low,” “High meat, low seafood,” and “All High.” The difference between the three consumer segments was determined through analysis of variance (ANOVA), Kruskal-Wallis H, Chi-square, and Fisher’s exact tests depending on the nature of data and types of variables (54).

Logistic regression was employed to assess the likelihood of belonging to the clusters based on a list of attitudinal statements. The dependent variables were segment membership, whereas the independent variables were 11 attitudinal questions covering different dimensions of buying meats close to the expiry date, such as perceived safety and healthiness, product desirability, social acceptance etc. The model also controlled for sociodemographic and behavioural variables, which showed significant differences across the segments. The function form of the logistic regression model used is represented as follows:

$Z_i=\ln \left[\frac{P_i}{1-P_i}\right]={\beta }_0+{\beta }_1{H}_i+{\beta }_2{Q}_i+{\beta }_3{Y}_i+{ϵ}_i$

where $Z_i$ is a log odds, ln denotes the natural logarithm, ${\beta }_0$ is constant, ${\beta }_1$, ${\beta }_2$ and ${\beta }_3$ are vectors of coefficients associated with variables $H_i$, $Q_i$ and $Y_i$ respectively. ${ϵ}_i$ is an error term. The coefficient calculates a change in log odds of the dependent variable, not the change in the variable itself. Thus, interpreting a logit by converting it to odds ratio using the exponential function is the most common way to interpret relationships (55). The functional form of odds ratio is represented as follows:

$\mathit{\text{Odds ratio}}=e^{{\beta }_0+{\beta }_1{H}_i+{\beta }_2{Q}_i+{\beta }_3{Y}_i+{ϵ}_{i.}}$

Here, the odds ratio is simply the ratio of the probability that the consumers belong to the clusters based on a list of attitudinal statements and higher odd ratios signify that consumers who agree with the statements are likelier to belong to that segment. Results are presented as odd ratios with associated p-values and confidence intervals. Further, ratio and proportion were used to simplify the explanation of the willingness to pay for MSPCED. Further, the difference in willingness to pay between consumer segments was determined by one-way ANOVA tests as it is commonly used to analyse the effects of a single categorical independent (with three or more levels) on a continuous dependent variable (54). p-values less than 0.05 were considered significant and are presented in bold in the results section.

Results

Three consumer segments were identified based on their willingness to buy MSPCED: 39.8% of the participants showed a high willingness to buy MSPCED (“All High”), 34.5% were selective with a high willingness to buy meat close to their expiry date but not seafood (“High meat, low seafood”), while 25.7% showed a low willingness to buy MSPCED (“All Low”).

Table 1 presents the sociodemographic characteristics of each segment and the total sample. The segments are similar for most sociodemographic variables except for gender and city size. The average age of the participants across segments is between 34 and 36. Roughly half of the participants live in the capital region of Denmark and the other half in a city with at least 100.000 inhabitants. The participants are dominated by females (59.2%). Moreover, a majority of the participants (70.3%) have achieved tertiary education, and the majority (52%) have an income of less than 20,000 Danish krone (DKK) per month.

Table 2 presents the consumers’ behaviour related to consuming MSPCED. The results indicate that the majority of the participants (80.5%) had previously bought MSPCED and 58.2% of the participants purchase MSPCED 1–3 times per month. Most of the participants are willing to buy MSPCED on the same date of expiry and freeze them for later use. The results indicated that there is a significant difference between consumer segments concerning the behaviour of consuming MSPCED. For instance, most of the consumers from the “All High” segment were willing to buy MSPCED that expire on the same day or 1 day before expiry, while most of the “All Low” consumers were willing to buy such products with more than 4 days left before reaching the last expiry date.

Table 3 presents the median and interquartile range of 11 attitudinal statements to buying MSPCED. The results indicated that there is a significant difference in attitudinal statements between the consumer segments except for statement 3 (AS3) and statement 9 (AS9). All three segments consider noticing the expiration date when buying meat and seafood products. Further, the “High meat, low seafood” segment perceived that discounted price is important for buying MSPCED, while the “All High” segment considered MSPCED to have good quality.

Furthermore, none of the segments perceives buying MSPCED as socially disqualifying, and all segments recognise buying MSPCED as reducing food waste. Similarly, the consumers in the “All Low” segment find buying MSPCED less appealing than the other two segments. In conclusion, the three groups share a common perception of MSPCED; the more favourable “All High” and “High meat, low seafood” segments reveal more positive attitudes than the “All Low” segments.

Table 4 shows the result of the likelihood of belonging to the segment based on attitudes towards eating MSPCED. Consumers who are confident that they will not get sick after consuming MSPCED and buying such products to reduce food waste belong to the “All High” segment. Consumers belonging to the “High meat, low seafood” segment considered the discounted price important when buying MSPCED. The “All Low” consumer segments perceived buying MSPCED as necessary.

Table 5 shows the average price and discount percentage consumers are willing to pay for minced beef, pork cut, chicken breast and cod fillets close to the expiry date. The result indicated that there is a significant difference in willingness to pay for these products across the three consumer segments, except for the discount percentage of 1 kg of chicken breast. With reference to the 100 DKK / kg original price, the willingness to pay showed a slightly increasing trend ranging from about 54 to 63% reduction in the price, on average 37 DKK for cod fillets, 46 DKK for minced beef, DKK 40 for pork cuts, and 46 DKK for chicken breast. The “All High” segment was willing to pay higher prices for pork cuts, chicken breast and cod fillets, while the “High meat and low seafood” segment was willing to pay higher prices for minced beef. Further, consumers belonging to the “High meat, low seafood” segment were likely to purchase minced beef and pork cuts when higher discount percentages were given. While the “All High” segments were more likely to purchase chicken breast and cod fillets when higher discount percentages were given.

Discussion

This study aims to investigate consumers, attitudes and willingness to buy MSPCED. The study identified three different consumer segments based on willingness to buy MSPCED: (1) “All High,” (2) “All Low” and (3) “High meat and low seafood.” Further, attitudes, behaviour and willingness to pay for MSPCED between the three consumer segments were explored. The results indicated that consumers’ buying behaviour towards the MSPCED is determined by their perceived quality, food safety, social acceptability, and price.

Perceived quality is regarded as a barrier to buying MSPCED and the finding from this study indicated that consumer segments perceived the quality of MSPCED differently. Previous studies have identified that the perception of food quality can be ambivalent. For example, food products with a short shelf-life may be perceived as high quality in terms of freshness, but at the same time, they can be perceived as low quality because the product may turn bad quickly (56). Consumers perceived that MSPCED are of lower quality only to a moderate extent, where the “All Low” segment remains the most sceptical regarding its quality, taste, and appeal. The finding aligns with previous studies that show how the label “close to expiry date” can affect consumers’ perception of the products’ quality negatively (57, 58). The findings from this study indicated that taste, smell, and look were assessed more closely to evaluate the quality of MSPCED, which may also indicate an increased risk of elevated food waste rates at the household level. A recent study found that consumers mainly rely on expiration dates and their senses to determine the freshness of meat and seafood products (35). Further, older consumers (55 years and above) were more likely to use their sensory skills to determine the quality and safety of a product rather than check expiry dates (59, 60). Thus, it is recommended to educate consumers through demonstration and experience to improve knowledge and trust in the expiration label and that smart labels could provide external validation in terms of the quality of MSPCED (35).

Fear of inadequate food safety is another crucial factor for discarding MSPCED and acts as a barrier to buying such products. The “All Low” segment, in particular, expressed fear about purchasing MSPCED, perceiving a risk of illness from consuming them. Additionally, they perceived MSPCED as less healthy compared to the “All High” and “High meat, low seafood” segments. Health is an abstract dimension commonly linked to subjective perceptions of nutritional and food safety in food products close to expiry (56). Further, the health risk is essential for consumers in determining consumption of food products close to the expiry date (61). Therefore, consumers use the expiration label, especially for highly perishable products, like meat (62) and seafood (63) to determine the potential health risk as a criterion for purchasing (64). Further, food safety concerns about meat and seafood products have become more important following the COVID-19 pandemic (65) and consumers seem to be extra cautious regarding such products. Information and knowledge are connected to behavioural aspects of consumers’ handling of MSPCED and have previously been of interest to the Danish Food Ministry and the Consumer Council, which has been using informational campaigns to promote information and knowledge about food safety issues (56). Apart from providing information and knowledge, novel packaging solutions targeting spoilage mitigation and smart sensors for dynamic shelf life labelling may support consumers’ preventive measures to mitigate food spoilage (66, 67).

Regarding the acceptability of MSPCED and consumers’ perceptions of food waste, all three segments recognise that buying MSPCED helps prevent food waste. Although the “All High” and “High meat, low seafood” segments tend to purchase MSPCED more frequently, they are also more likely to discard or refrain from consuming the product if it exhibits suspicious or unpleasant odours or colours. Previous research shows consumers often feel morally obligated to reduce food waste (46). Regarding the willingness to buy MSPCED, increasing consumer awareness on issues regarding food waste may increase consumers’ moral satisfaction in buying near-expired food (68). The research further highlights that using food waste avoidance messages that signal to buy near-expired food is a pro-environmental behaviour that can further increase consumers’ moral satisfaction in buying near-expired food.

Despite consumers’ awareness and recognition of food waste prevention in paying for MSPCED, pro-environmental behaviours do not always extend from supermarkets to household situations. Some research shows that according to moral licence, people who initially behave morally by paying for MSPCED may later engage in unethical behaviours (68, 69). In this regard, knowledge of managing expiration dates and reducing food waste may become more critical in the future. Support in the form of policy incentives could make this consumer behaviour more frequent as there is already an underlying positive perception about consuming products close to the expiration date (46).

The results from this study indicated that the price and discount percentages are important factors influencing consumers’ willingness to buy MSPCED. Depending on the product type, consumer willingness to pay for MSPCED differs. Further, price reduction and discount percentage can have varying effects in influencing willingness to pay for MSPCED. In line with this finding, price is considered the most crucial factor affecting consumer buying decisions (70–72) and is still the main barrier to consumers’ willingness to buy products close to the expiry date (71). In Denmark, a recent initiative by DanChurchAid focused exclusively on surplus goods, being the first initiative of its kind offering food products that regular supermarkets can no longer sell for reasons such as overdue ‘best before’ dates or damaged packaging at 30–50% below market prices (73). However, discounts are not the only way to promote sales as a recent study has shown that a message about food waste avoidance can suffice to increase consumers’ willingness to buy food close to the expiry date without recurring to lower prices (68). Thus, food close to expiry exclusively as cheap and arbitrarily discounted products does not always prompt consumers to buy them (74). However, it is notable that all three groups of consumers valued discounted prices and discounted percentages when buying MSPCED. Therefore, this study confirms that discounts keep playing a vital role in the willingness to buy perishable products approaching the expiry date. In Denmark, discounts remain a popular strategy (75), and food waste practitioners are interested in finding what price can influence willingness to buy MSPCED and maximise economic returns. Further, consumers do not perceive price promotions uniformly, so a one-size-fits-all price promotion may not be as effective in promoting prices as more nuanced approaches (74). This study did not address additional promotion efforts, including money-back guarantees or explicit instructions for cooking or storing a particular product (74). Thus, it is recommended to implement a dynamic pricing strategy by considering different factors such as the initial inventory age profile or the sensitivity of demand to the product age for reducing perishable food waste at retailers (76, 77).

The result from this study indicated that chicken breast retained its original price more than minced beef, pork cuts and cod fillets, but unless a higher discount percentage was provided consumers were less willing to buy them. Further, cod fillets lost most of their original value, but consumers were willing to buy them with less discount percentage. In general, seafood is expensive when compared to other meat products and consumers value its freshness, taste, and health and nutrition profiles (78–80). Further, seafood is generally perceived with higher food safety concerns than meat (81, 82). The greater the risks associated with a product, the more frequently consumers check expiration dates, resulting in decreased willingness to pay (50). This might explain why cod fillets close to the expiry date lose most of their value compared to other meat products. The findings are in line with previous studies that indicated that price change presented in discount percentages or monetary amounts stimulates consumers’ perceptions and its effect depends on the products’ regular price (83, 84). Thus, it is recommended that retailers test whether discount percentage, monetary amount and/or both optimise the sales of MSPCED while maximising the profit. Further, a study has found that combining discounting with dynamic shelf life strategies seems more effective in reducing food waste at the retail level (85).

A study from Collart and Interis (46) suggests that the willingness to buy MSPCED increases if purchased in frozen form. Another study described that the willingness to purchase the product could increase if the product were divided into single-packed portions. This study has not investigated this aspect, but consumers were freezing MSPCED for later use, especially among consumers from the “All High” and “High meat, low seafood” segments. While freezing one part and consuming another immediately, MSPCED product reduces potential waste, prolong the products’ shelf-life, and eliminate the need to consume them immediately (75). The findings also suggested that the timing of consuming MSPCED is a factor to consider when purchasing such products. Across all segments, more than half of consumers declared to consume MSPCED immediately, with even higher percentages for consumers in both “All High” and “High meat, low seafood” segments that seem to affect consumers’ willingness to buy MSPCED.

Strengths and limitations of the study

The sample size of 400 consumers supports the appropriateness of online survey research (86). This study focuses on the attitudes and willingness to buy MSPCED, which has often been neglected. The results show that knowledge about the importance of how discount prices are communicated with the MSPCED to influence willingness to buy MSPCED could be relevant for future studies.

There are several limitations of this study. The term “close to expiry date” was left to the consumers’ interpretations to limit biassed answers. However, it has been estimated that 68.8% of Danish consumers correctly interpret the meaning of the “expiry date” label (56). The absence of questions on dietary preferences may have limited the collection of relevant data for explaining the characteristics of the segments. The snowball method was used as a sampling strategy, so there is a higher likelihood of biassed results (87). Further, participants were recruited through social media, which might have resulted in self-selection bias (88) and verification of information on the Web remains more difficult than in a face-to-face survey. However, studies have indicated that social media can be the best recruitment method for observational studies (89). We have only included four MSPCED for determining willingness to pay, which might have limited the inclusion of consumers’ preferred meat and seafood products. Further, individual taste preferences might also have influenced the results. For instance, in a situation where someone who eats meat, but does not eat seafood, or likes to eat seafood, but does not eat meat, then his/her willingness to buy MSPCED is likely to be different from that of an individual who likes both meat and seafood. Lastly, a high share of low-income (about 62%) and highly educated (about 73%) respondents in our sample, represents a bias in the representativeness of the sample.

Conclusion

The present study identified three consumer segments based on their willingness to buy MSPCED, the “All Low” (25.7% of the participants), the “All High” (39.8%), and the “High meat, low seafood” (34.5%). Despite consumers’ awareness and recognition of food waste prevention in buying MSPCED, pro-environmental behaviours might not necessarily extend from supermarkets to households, as several consumers throw MSPCED after purchase due to (perceived or real) product spoilage. In this regard, knowledge of managing the MSPCED and understanding the attitude-intention-behavioural gap in reducing food waste may become a critical parameter for reducing food waste at the household level. Future studies might investigate this aspect and immediate consumption and portion size freezing at home could have provided us with a better insight into the knowledge and awareness among consumer segments regarding food waste prevention. Lastly, policymakers should implement regulations that enable flexible pricing for meat and seafood products close to the expiry date, enabling retailers to provide discounts without facing legal limitations. Retailers, in turn, should implement dynamic pricing strategies and cross-promotional campaigns to maximise sales of these products, while aiming to reduce food waste.

Data availability statement

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation.

Ethics statement

The studies involving humans were approved by Research Ethics Committee of Science and Health at the University of Copenhagen. The studies were conducted in accordance with the local legislation and institutional requirements. The participants provided their written informed consent to participate in this study.

Author contributions

SPa: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Software, Validation, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. AB: Conceptualization, Data curation, Investigation, Methodology, Writing – original draft. VF: Conceptualization, Data curation, Investigation, Methodology, Writing – original draft. PM: Conceptualization, Data curation, Investigation, Methodology, Writing – original draft, Formal analysis. SPh: Conceptualization, Data curation, Investigation, Methodology, Writing – original draft. ES: Conceptualization, Data curation, Investigation, Methodology, Writing – original draft. MB: Formal analysis, Methodology, Software, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – review & editing. MT: Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – review & editing.

Funding

The author(s) declare that financial support was received for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. The present research was funded by the FOODRUS project, which has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement N°101000617 and the MICROORC project funded from the Horizon Europe programme for research and innovation under the grant agreement N° 101136248.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Publisher’s note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

References

1. EAT-Lancet Commission. Healthy diets from sustainable food systems- food planet health summary. Oslo, Norway: Report of the EAT-Lancet Commission (2019).

Google Scholar

2. Steffen, W, Richardson, K, Rockström, J, Cornell, SE, Fetzer, I, Bennett, EM, et al. Planetary boundaries: guiding human development on a changing planet. Science. (2015) 347:1259855. doi: 10.1126/science.1259855

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

3. Poore, J, and Nemecek, T. Reducing food’s environmental impacts through producers and consumers. Res Gate Sci. (2018) 360:987–92. doi: 10.1126/science.aaq0216

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

4. Ritchie, H., (2019). Food production is responsible for one-quarter of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions [WWW document]. URL https://ourworldindata.org/food-ghg-emissions (accessed 6.7.22).

Google Scholar

5. UNEP. UNEP food waste index report 2021. Nairobi: United Nations Environment Programme (2021).

Google Scholar

6. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Food wastage footprint: Impacts on natural resources: Summary report. Rome: FAO (2013).

Google Scholar

7. Cederberg, C., and Sonesson, U., (2011). Global food losses and food waste: extent, causes and prevention; study conducted for the international congress save food! At Interpack 2011, [16 - 17 may], Düsseldorf, Germany. Presented at the international congress save food!, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations Rome.

Google Scholar

8. Gooch, M, Bucknell, D, Laplain, D, Dent, B, Whitehead, P, Felfe, A, et al. The avoidable crisis of food waste. Ontario, Canada: Technical report (2019).

Google Scholar

9. UNEP. The environmental food crisis – The environment’s role in averting future food crises. Norway: A UNEP rapid response assessment, United Nations Environment Programme (2009).

Google Scholar

10. Madkulturen,, (2023). Kødets rolle i danskernes aftensmad [WWW Document]. URL https://www.madkulturen.dk/viden/koedets-rolle-i-danskernes-aftensmad/ (accessed 1.4.23).

Google Scholar

11. Ritchie, H., (2020). Food waste is responsible for 6% of global greenhouse gas emissions. Our World Data. URL https://ourworldindata.org/food-waste-emissions (accessed 12.28.22).

Google Scholar

12. Xu, X, Sharma, P, Shu, S, Lin, T-S, Ciais, P, Tubiello, FN, et al. Global greenhouse gas emissions from animal-based foods are twice those of plant-based foods. Nat Food. (2021) 2:724–32. doi: 10.1038/s43016-021-00358-x

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

13. Brancoli, P, Rousta, K, and Bolton, K. Life cycle assessment of supermarket food waste. Resour Conserv Recycl. (2017) 118:39–46. doi: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2016.11.024

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

14. FAO. Towards blue transformation, The state of world fisheries and aquaculture. Rome: FAO (2022).

Google Scholar

15. Karwowska, M, Łaba, S, and Szczepański, K. Food loss and waste in meat sector—why the consumption stage generates the Most losses? MDPI Sustain. (2021) 13:1–13. doi: 10.3390/su13116227

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

16. Osei-Owusu, AK, Kastner, T, De Ruiter, H, Thomsen, M, and Caro, D. The global cropland footprint of Denmark’s food supply 2000–2013. Glob Environ Chang. (2019) 58:101978. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2019.101978

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

17. Osei-Owusu, AK, Read, QD, and Thomsen, M. Potential energy and environmental footprint savings from reducing food loss and waste in Europe: a scenario-based multiregional input-output analysis. Environ Sci Technol. (2023) 57:16296–308. doi: 10.1021/acs.est.3c00158

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

18. Kaipia, R, Dukovska-Popovska, I, and Loikkanen, L. Creating sustainable fresh food supply chains through waste reduction. Int J Phys Distrib Logist Manag. (2013) 43:262–76. doi: 10.1108/IJPDLM-11-2011-0200

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

19. Giménez, A, Ares, F, and Ares, G. Sensory shelf-life estimation: a review of current methodological approaches. Food Res Int. (2012) 49:311–25. doi: 10.1016/j.foodres.2012.07.008

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

20. Maio, R, García-Díez, J, and Saraiva, C. Microbiological quality of foodstuffs sold on expiry date at retail in Portugal: a preliminary study. Food Secur. (2020) 9:919. doi: 10.3390/foods9070919

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

21. Van Boxstael, S, Devlieghere, F, Berkvens, D, Vermeulen, A, and Uyttendaele, M. Understanding and attitude regarding the shelf life labels and dates on pre-packed food products by Belgian consumers. Food Control. (2014) 37:85–92. doi: 10.1016/j.foodcont.2013.08.043

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

22. De Los Mozos, EA, Badurdeen, F, and Dossou, P-E. Sustainable consumption by reducing food waste: a review of the current state and directions for future research. Procedia Manuf. (2020) 51:1791–8. doi: 10.1016/j.promfg.2020.10.249

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

23. Kastiya, N, and Verma, IK. Encouraging better food inventory management: a Mobile application-based solution In: A Chakrabarti and V Singh, editors. Design in the era of industry 4.0, vol. 1. Singapore: Smart Innovation, Systems and Technologies. Springer Nature Singapore (2023). 785–96.

Google Scholar

24. Aschemann-Witzel, J, Otterbring, T, de Hooge, IE, Normann, A, Rohm, H, Almli, VL, et al. The who, where and why of choosing suboptimal foods: consequences for tackling food waste in store. J Clean Prod. (2019) 236:117596. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.07.071

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

25. Calvo-Porral, C, Medín, AF, and Losada-López, C. Can marketing help in tackling food waste?: proposals in developed countries. J Food Prod Mark. (2017) 23:42–60. doi: 10.1080/10454446.2017.1244792

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

26. Poyatos-Racionero, E, Ros-Lis, JV, Vivancos, J-L, and Martinez-Manez, R. Recent advances on intelligent packaging as tools to reduce food waste. J Clean Prod. (2018) 172:3398–409. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.11.075

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

27. Versino, F, Ortega, F, Monroy, Y, Rivero, S, López, OV, and García, MA. Sustainable and bio-based food packaging: a review on past and current design innovations. Food Secur. (2023) 12:1057. doi: 10.3390/foods12051057

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

28. Pearson, D, Mirosa, M, Andrews, L, and Kerr, G. Reframing communications that encourage individuals to reduce food waste. Commun Res Pract. (2017) 3:137–54. doi: 10.1080/22041451.2016.1209274

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

29. Toma, L, Costa Font, M, and Thompson, B. Impact of consumers’ understanding of date labelling on food waste behaviour. Oper Res. (2020) 20:543–60. doi: 10.1007/s12351-017-0352-3

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

30. Landbrug & Fødevarer, (2021). Danskernes forbrug af kød (Markedsanalyse).[WWW Document]. URL: https://markedsanalyse-om-danskernes-koedforbrug-1-1.pdf(lf.dk) (Accessed April 2, 2023).

Google Scholar

31. Aston, LM, Smith, JN, and Powles, JW. Impact of a reduced red and processed meat dietary pattern on disease risks and greenhouse gas emissions in the UK: a modelling study. BMJ Open. (2012) 2:e001072. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2012-001072

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

32. Perez-Cueto, A., (2021). Danskerne har nedsat kødforbruget – men vi halter efter de andre europæere [WWW Document]. URL https://nyheder.ku.dk/alle_nyheder/2021/11/danskerne-har-nedsat-koedforbruget--men-vi-halter-efter-de-andre-europaeere/ (accessed 1.4.23).

Google Scholar

33. Halloran, A, Clement, J, Kornum, N, Bucatariu, C, and Magid, J. Addressing food waste reduction in Denmark. Food Policy. (2014) 49:294–301. doi: 10.1016/j.foodpol.2014.09.005

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

34. Stancu, V, and Lähteenmäki, L. Consumer-related antecedents of food provisioning behaviors that promote food waste. Food Policy. (2022) 108:102236. doi: 10.1016/j.foodpol.2022.102236

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

35. Barone, AM, and Aschemann-Witzel, J. Food handling practices and expiration dates: consumers’ perception of smart labels. Sci Direct Elsevier Food Control. (2021) 133:108615–9. doi: 10.1016/j.foodcont.2021.108615

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

36. Kavanaugh, M, and Quinlan, JJ. Consumer knowledge and behaviors regarding food date labels and food waste. Food Control. (2020) 115:107285. doi: 10.1016/j.foodcont.2020.107285

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

37. Pandey, S, Budhathoki, M, Feng, K, Thomsen, M, and Reinbach, HC. Who buys surplus meals? An exploratory survey in Danish canteens. Food Secur. (2023) 12:1035. doi: 10.3390/foods12051035

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

38. Salling Group, (2018). Madspild [WWW Document]. URL https://sallinggroup.com/ansvarlighed/baeredygtig-hverdag/madspild/ (accessed 1.4.23).

Google Scholar

39. Aschemann-Witzel, J. Consumer perception and preference for suboptimal food under the emerging practice of expiration date based pricing in supermarkets. Food Qual Prefer. (2018) 63:119–28. doi: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2017.08.007

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

40. Choi, KJ, Jia, HM, Lee, JY, Kim, BK, and Kim, K. Hedonic myopia: emphasizing hedonic benefits of non-perishable food makes consumers insensitive to expiration dates in food purchase. J Bus Res. (2022) 138:193–202. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.09.005

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

41. D’Amato, A, Goeschl, T, Lorè, L, and Zoli, M. True to type? EU-style date marking and the valuation of perishable food. Food Policy. (2023) 114:102381. doi: 10.1016/j.foodpol.2022.102381

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

42. Konuk, FA. The role of risk aversion and brand-related factors in predicting consumers’ willingness to buy expiration date-based priced perishable food products. Sci Direct Elsevier, Food Res Int. (2018) 112:312–8. doi: 10.1016/j.foodres.2018.06.009

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

43. Samotyja, U, and Sielicka-Różyńska, M. How date type, freshness labelling and food category influence consumer rejection. Int J Consum Stud. (2021) 45:441–55. doi: 10.1111/ijcs.12634

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

44. Sapci, O, and Sapci, A. Consumer perception of food expiration labels: “sell by” versus “expires on”. East Econ J. (2020) 46:673–89. doi: 10.1057/s41302-020-00175-3

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

45. Theotokis, A, Pramatari, K, and Tsiros, M. Effects of expiration date-based pricing on brand image perceptions. J Retail. (2012) 88:72–87. doi: 10.1016/j.jretai.2011.06.003

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

46. Collart, AJ, and Interis, MG. Consumer imperfect information in the market for expired and nearly expired foods and implications for reducing food waste. MDPI Sustain. (2018) 10:1–17. doi: 10.3390/su10113835

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

47. Sedgwick, PM. Snowball sampling. BMJ Clin Res. (2013) 347. doi: 10.1136/bmj.f7511

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

48. Melgaard, CV, Voss, E, Hansen, MF, Lassen, M, Hvidtfeldt, M, Pandey, S, et al. Danish consumers’ knowledge about and willingness to buy dairy products close to the best-before-date. Food Front. (2024):fft2.337. doi: 10.1002/fft2.337

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

49. Thompson, B, Toma, L, Barnes, AP, and Revoredo-Giha, C. The effect of date labels on willingness to consume dairy products: implications for food waste reduction. Waste Manag. (2018) 78:124–34. doi: 10.1016/j.wasman.2018.05.021

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

50. Tsiros, M, and Heilman, CM. The effect of expiration dates and perceived risk on purchasing behavior in grocery store perishable categories. J Mark. (2005) 69:114–29. doi: 10.1509/jmkg.69.2.114.60762

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

51. IBM Corp, (2022). IBM SPSS statistics for windows. Armonk, New York, USA: IBM SPSS.

Google Scholar

52. Jain, AK. Data clustering: 50 years beyond K-means. Pattern Recogn Lett. (2010) 31:651–66. doi: 10.1016/j.patrec.2009.09.011

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

53. Malik, A, and Tuckfield, B. Applied unsupervised learning with R: Uncover hidden relationships and patterns with k-means clustering, hierarchical clustering, and PCA Birmingham, United Kingdom: Packt Publishing Ltd. (2019).

Google Scholar

54. Randolph, KA, and Myers, LL. Basic statistics in multivariate analysis, Pocket guides to social work research methods. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press (2013).

Google Scholar

55. Garson, G. Logistic regression. North Carolina, United States: North Carolina State University (2008).

Google Scholar

56. Glanz-Chanos, V, Friis, R, and Lähteenmäki, L. Holdbarhedsmærkninger på Fødevarer - Forståelse blandt forbrugere. Denmark: Aarhus Universitet (2016).

Google Scholar

57. van Rijswijk, W, and Frewer, LJ. Consumer perceptions of food quality and safety and their relation to traceability. Br Food J. (2008) 110:1034–46. doi: 10.1108/00070700810906642

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

58. Völckner, F, and Hofmann, J. The price-perceived quality relationship: a meta-analytic review and assessment of its determinants. Springer Sci Bus Media Marketing Letters. (2007) 18:181–96. doi: 10.1007/s11002-007-9013-2

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

59. Secondi, L. Expiry dates, consumer behavior, and food waste: how would Italian consumers react if there were no longer “best before” labels? Sustain For. (2019) 11:6821. doi: 10.3390/su11236821

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

60. Terpstra, MJ, Steenbekkers, LPA, De Maertelaere, NCM, and Nijhuis, S. Food storage and disposal: consumer practices and knowledge. Br Food J. (2005) 107:526–33. doi: 10.1108/00070700510606918

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

61. Dörnyei, KR, and Gyulavári, T. Why do not you read the label? – an integrated framework of consumer label information search. Wiley Int J Consum Stud. (2015) 40:92–100. doi: 10.1111/ijcs.12218

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

62. Verbeke, W, and Ward, RW. Consumer interest in information cues denoting quality, traceability and origin: an application of ordered probit models to beef labels. Food Qual Prefer. (2006) 17:453–67. doi: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2005.05.010

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

63. Pieniak, Z, Verbeke, W, Scholderer, J, Brunsø, K, and Olsen, SO. European consumers’ use of and trust in information sources about fish. Food Qual Prefer. (2007) 18:1050–63. doi: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2007.05.001

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

64. Yeung, RMW, and Morris, J. Food safety risk: consumer perception and purchase behaviour. Br Food J Emerald Insight. (2001) 103:170–87. doi: 10.1108/00070700110386728

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

65. Meixner, O, and Katt, F. Assessing the impact of COVID-19 on consumer food safety perceptions—a choice-based willingness to pay study. Sustain For. (2020) 12:7270. doi: 10.3390/su12187270

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

66. Fang, Z, Zhao, Y, Warner, RD, and Johnson, SK. Active and intelligent packaging in meat industry. Trends Food Sci Technol. (2017) 61:60–71. doi: 10.1016/j.tifs.2017.01.002

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

67. Yousefi, H, Su, H-M, Imani, SM, Alkhaldi, K, Filipe, M, and Didar, TF. Intelligent food packaging: a review of smart sensing Technologies for Monitoring Food Quality. ACS Sens. (2019) 4:808–21. doi: 10.1021/acssensors.9b00440

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

68. Zhang, Y, van Herpen, E, Van Loo, EJ, Pandelaere, M, and Geuens, M. Save near-expired food: does a message to avoid food waste affect food purchase and household waste prevention behaviors? J Clean Prod. (2023) 384:135555. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.135555

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

69. Blanken, I, Van De Ven, N, and Zeelenberg, M. A meta-analytic review of moral licensing. SAGE J. (2015) 41:540–58. doi: 10.1177/0146167215572134

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

70. Budhathoki, M, Campbell, D, Belton, B, Newton, R, Li, S, Zhang, W, et al. Factors influencing consumption behaviour towards aquatic food among Asian consumers: a systematic scoping review. Food Secur. (2022) 11:4043. doi: 10.3390/foods11244043

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

71. Gleim, MR, Smith, JS, Andrews, D, and Cronin, JJ. Against the green: a multi-method examination of the barriers to green consumption. J Retail. (2013) 89:44–61. doi: 10.1016/j.jretai.2012.10.001

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

72. Grunert, KG, Hieke, S, and Wills, J. Sustainability labels on food products: consumer motivation, understanding and use. Food Policy. (2014) 44:177–89. doi: 10.1016/j.foodpol.2013.12.001

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

73. DanChurchAid, (2016). WeFood: Denmark’s first-ever surplus food supermarket. [WWW Document]. URL: https://Wefood-DanChurchAid (Accessed April 3, 2023).

Google Scholar

74. Tsalis, G. What’s the deal? Consumer price involvement and the intention to purchase suboptimal foods. A cross-national study Food Qual Prefer. (2020) 79:103747. doi: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2019.103747

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

75. Aschemann-Witzel, J, Jensen, JH, Jensen, MH, and Kulikovskaja, V. Consumer behaviour towards price-reduced suboptimal foods in the supermarket and the relation to food waste in households. Appetite. (2017) 116:246–58. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2017.05.013

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

76. Adenso-Díaz, B, Lozano, S, and Palacio, A. Effects of dynamic pricing of perishable products on revenue and waste. Appl Math Model. (2017) 45:148–64. doi: 10.1016/j.apm.2016.12.024

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

77. Kayikci, Y, Demir, S, Mangla, SK, Subramanian, N, and Koc, B. Data-driven optimal dynamic pricing strategy for reducing perishable food waste at retailers. J Clean Prod. (2022) 344:131068. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.131068

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

78. Budhathoki, M, Zolner, A, Nielsen, T, and Reinbach, HC. The role of production method information on sensory perception of smoked salmon-a mixed-method study from Denmark. Food Qual Prefer. (2021) 94:104325. doi: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2021.104325

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

79. Carlucci, D, Nocella, G, De Devitiis, B, Viscecchia, R, Bimbo, F, and Nardone, G. Consumer purchasing behaviour towards fish and seafood products. Patterns and insights from a sample of international studies. Appetite. (2015) 84:212–27. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2014.10.008

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

80. Torrissen, JK, and Onozaka, Y. Comparing fish to meat: perceived qualities by food lifestyle segments. Aquac Econ Manag. (2017) 21:44–70. doi: 10.1080/13657305.2017.1265022

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

81. Choudhury, S, Medina-Lara, A, Daniel, N, and Smith, R. Seafood safety: a need for greater awareness. J Public Health Res. (2022) 11:227990362211240. doi: 10.1177/22799036221124058

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

82. Smith DeWaal, C. Safe food from a consumer perspective. Food Control. (2003) 14:75–9. doi: 10.1016/S0956-7135(02)00114-7

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

83. Della Bitta, AJ, Monroe, KB, and Mcginnis, JM. Consumer perceptions of comparative Price advertisements. J Mark Res. (1981) 18:416–27. doi: 10.1177/002224378101800402

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

84. Lehtimäki, A-V, Monroe, KB, and Somervuori, O. The influence of regular price level (low, medium, or high) and framing of discount (monetary or percentage) on perceived attractiveness of discount amount. J Revenue Pricing Manag. (2019) 18:76–85. doi: 10.1057/s41272-018-0152-2

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

85. Buisman, ME, Haijema, R, and Bloemhof-Ruwaard, JM. Discounting and dynamic shelf life to reduce fresh food waste at retailers. Int J Prod Econ. (2019) 209:274–84. doi: 10.1016/j.ijpe.2017.07.016

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

86. Hill, R. What sample size is “ENOUGH”in internet survey research? Interpers Comput Technol Electron J. (1998) 6:1–10.

Google Scholar

87. Willis, D., (2022). Advantages & Disadvantages of snowball sampling [WWW document]. URL https://www.ehow.co.uk/info_8444993_advantages-disadvantages-snowball-sampling.html (accessed 6.16.22).

Google Scholar

88. Khazaal, Y, Van Singer, M, Chatton, A, Achab, S, Zullino, D, Rothen, S, et al. Does self-selection affect samples’ representativeness in online surveys? An investigation in online video game research. J Med Internet Res. (2014) 16:e164. doi: 10.2196/jmir.2759

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

89. Topolovec-Vranic, J, and Natarajan, K. The use of social Media in Recruitment for medical research studies: a scoping review. J Med Internet Res. (2016) 18:e286. doi: 10.2196/jmir.5698

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar