What does it take to be a “fancy” food – and do we really need it?

Food labeling in the United States is…interesting, to say the least. Some terms that companies use on their labels are not defined and are mainly unregulated, such as grass-fed and sustainable. Others are regulated but the terms do not necessarily mean what consumers think they do including cage-free and natural. One term that is regulated by the USDA surprised me – the word “fancy”, which Food and Wine explains does have fairly strict criteria applied to its use.

Both the terms “fancy”‘ and “extra fancy” are part of the voluntary grading system that the USDA uses for produce items. To be considered “extra fancy”, the produce item must fit a long list of criteria. For instance, apples bearing this appellation must be “mature but not overripe, clean, fairly well formed, free from decay, internal browning, internal breakdown, soft scald, scab, freezing injury, visible water core, and broken skins” and be “free from injury caused by bruises, brown surface discoloration, smooth net-like russeting, sunburn or sprayburn, limb rubs, hail, drought spots, scars, disease, insects, or other means.” Whew. “Fancy” labeling includes some of the terms above, but this grade allows for  “minor imperfections in color or shape.” Other foods covered by the term include peaches, blueberries, oranges, and pecans.

Of course, none of this means the fruit or nut in question tastes any better than its non-fancy counterpart, nor does it have anything to do with the nutritional value. I have eaten gorgeous, perfectly-shaped, blemish-free Red Delicious apples that lived up to the first part of their name but not the second. In what some might say is typical American fashion, the grading terms of “fancy” and “extra fancy” apply only to the appearance of the food, not its substance.

Beauty being skin-deep when it comes to produce means that oddly-shaped, discolored, or otherwise imperfect food is left to rot. A 2016 article in The Guardian confirmed that growers discarded tons of produce before it even make it to market due to cosmetic blemishes. This is not limited to the US – the same article noted that globally, one-third of food is wasted. Despite pledges by the Obama administration to halve food waste by 2030, not much progress has been made. A 2023 study found that 30% of food was still being wasted in the US.

A few companies have responded to this dilemma by marketing “ugly” foods at a discount over perfect items. I tried one home-delivery service that specialized in this, but ultimately had to cancel the subscription. This was due to issues with the handling and delivery, not the produce itself – the items were poorly packed and the boxes arrived heavily damaged, rendering the food inedible. Sometimes supermarkets will have a small section devoted to unsightly produce or items that are past peak ripeness, but mainly this produce ends up in the landfill.

With the price of food continuing to climb in the US, this seems like a great time to tackle the problem, but there currently does not seem to be any political will to do something on a systemic level to address it. Consumers may be responding to increasing food costs by being more deliberate with their purchases and may also be less inclined to throw out food, but I am not aware of any studies or surveys that could confirm this. And people still seem happy to pay $19 for a single, perfect, strawberry.