Processing Fruits and Vegetables as a Way to Prevent Their Waste

Abstract

The aim of the current study was to determine the scale and underlying causes for the waste of raw and processed fruits and vegetables in Polish households. A survey was conducted on a representative sample of 1100 respondents. The collected empirical data were analyzed using statistical tools such as non-parametric tests, multiple regression methods, and logistic regression. This study assessed the level and determinants of waste of raw and processed fruits and vegetables, identified the reasons for this waste and their impact on its extent, and analyzed the effect of waste prevention methods (including processing) on the scale of product losses. This study showed that the scale of waste of processed fruits and vegetables in Polish consumer households is significantly lower than that of raw products. The level of waste for both raw and processed products vary depending on place of residence, education, income, household size, and, in the case of processed fruits and vegetables, also the age of respondents. The main reason for fruit and vegetable losses in households is missing the product’s expiration date. Logistic regression analysis showed that the most effective strategies for reducing the waste of raw fruits and vegetables include purchasing the right quantities and freezing them. In contrast, practices such as donating food to others or composting were linked to a statistically significant decrease in the likelihood of reducing waste.

1. Introduction

According to the FAO, food is wasted due to loss and waste generation [1]. It is essential to understand that, while only the edible portions of plants and animals are classified as food, the entire product—encompassing both edible and inedible parts—plays a significant role in environmental degradation, as well as in the associated economic, social, and environmental costs. Consequently, most reports on food waste incorporate information and analyses that address the entirety of the products involved [2]. Addressing food waste is a crucial aspect of sustainable development, as highlighted by the United Nations Sustainable Development Goal 12.3. This goal aims to reduce per capita global food waste by 10% at the retail level and 30% at the consumer level, both by 2030. Reducing food waste contributes to improved resource efficiency, helps combat climate change, and enhances global food security [3].

Food waste is a global problem. According to FAO data, 1.3 billion tons of food are wasted annually worldwide, which corresponds to one-third of all food produced [4]. Food is wasted throughout the entire food supply chain, starting from primary production (raw material acquisition), processing, transportation and storage, trade, and catering, all the way to households (consumers) [5,6,7]. In 2022, approximately 1 billion tons of food were wasted globally, of which about 60% came from households, 28% from food services, and 12% from retail. The scale of food waste varies depending on a country’s level of development. Higher-income countries, with better monitoring systems and higher consumption, have more data on waste in households, food services, and retail. In lower-income countries, data availability is limited, especially in food services and retail sectors, making it harder to assess the problem fully. Nevertheless, the number of countries covered by studies is growing, allowing better comparisons and understanding of regional differences. In the EU, thanks to mandatory reporting from all 27 member states, detailed and reliable data are available, enabling effective actions to reduce food waste [8]. In EU countries, the highest level of food waste occurs at the household stage—54%, which amounts to 72 kg per person per year. Food producers are responsible for 19% of the total food waste, primary production accounts for 9%, restaurants and food services for 11%, and retailers and distribution networks for 8% [9].

According to Eurostat data from 2022, there are significant differences in the amount of food waste generated by households across the 27 EU member states. The highest levels are observed in Cyprus (273 kg per person per year), while the lowest are in Slovenia (74 kg). In Poland, this value amounts to 120 kg, compared to the EU average of approximately 132 kg [9]. The issue of food waste is significant both globally and nationally, and it is increasingly being addressed in public policies and legal measures due to commitments related to the Sustainable Development Goals. A central component of the European Union’s strategy is the Farm to Fork Initiative, part of the European Green Deal, which promotes sustainable production and consumption while aiming to reduce food waste across all stages of the supply chain [10]. This initiative is supported by the Waste Framework Directive 2008/98/EC, which establishes a hierarchy for waste management with a strong emphasis on waste prevention [11]. In Poland, the Act on Counteracting Food Waste, introduced in 2019 Journal of Laws 2020, item 1645, requires large retailers to donate unsold products to social organizations, with penalties imposed for disposal [12]. Additionally, various educational campaigns and supportive apps are being developed to reduce food loss. Local initiatives, such as community fridges and Food Banks, are also gaining traction [13]. These efforts illustrate that reducing food waste is becoming a priority in public policies at both national and EU levels, highlighting the importance of cross-sector collaboration, education, and social.

As previously mentioned, both statistical data and scientific analyses on food waste indicate that the highest percentage of losses is generated at the household level [9,14,15,16]. Studies examining the impact of demographic and economic factors on the level of food waste have found that older generations tend to waste less food than younger ones [17]. It has also been observed that smaller households—particularly single-person households—generate less waste, while households with children may produce higher levels of food waste [18]. Research findings regarding the influence of gender, income, and education on food waste levels remain inconclusive [19]. When considering food product groups, the problem of food waste—both in Poland and in other countries—primarily concerns fruits and vegetables [20,21,22,23]. This results from the fact that fruits and vegetables are basic food products, which play an essential role in a proper human diet [24], and, as a consequence, they are purchased in large quantities, often exceeding the possibilities of their use [25].

Fruit and vegetable waste accounts for approximately 16% of all food waste and contributes to around 6% of global greenhouse gas emissions [26]. These products are also primarily wasted at the household level. It is estimated that fruits and vegetables make up 31% of total food losses generated by households and the food service sector, which translates to 35.3 kg per person per year [27].

Much less waste is generated at the fruit and vegetable processing stage. Nevertheless, in Europe—where this sector is highly developed—such waste can account for up to 30% of total post-production waste [28,29]. This includes remnants such as peels, pulp, seeds, and other plant parts, which often end up in landfills or thermal processing facilities, thereby losing their potential nutritional and material value [30]. However, in many warm-climate countries, fruit and vegetable waste substantially rises during the summer months, particularly at the sales stage. Elevated temperatures accelerate the ripening process and soften produce, which in turn diminishes both shelf life and transportability, resulting in increased waste levels—sometimes exceeding 20% for fruits and 50% for vegetables. This seasonal waste leads to greater economic losses compared to other times of the year. Additionally, highly perishable fruits and vegetables typically face global loss rates of 40–50% [31,32].

There are numerous approaches to reducing fruit and vegetable waste at all stages of the food production chain. Bancal and Ray [33] identified seven key stages where losses and waste occur in the handling of horticultural products, starting from harvest, through handling, storage, processing, packaging, transportation, and even during the product offering to customers. Similarly, Anad and Barua [34] highlighted 16 critical factors contributing to post-harvest losses and waste in fresh produce supply chains, including poor coordination between production, processing, and markets; the lack of seasonal demand forecasting; insufficient logistics and cold chain availability; inappropriate planting times; and the lack of specialized vehicles. Addressing these factors is crucial for effective waste reduction. At the farm level and during transit between the farm and the processing or retail location, strategies include more precise production planning, the optimization of storage conditions, extending the shelf life of plant-based raw materials, e.g., through the use of GMOs (genetically modified organisms), and the biodegradation of waste [35,36,37].

In the processing sector, suggested strategies include production diversification, waste biodegradation, and the utilization of by-products for the production of animal feed [38], fertilizers, and biopolymers [39], as well as for enriching food with functional ingredients [16]. Additional applications include the production of biofuels [40] textiles, and leather alternatives [41]. New processing methods are also being developed to minimize waste generation while reducing the negative impact of processing on the nutritional value of final products [42].

At the distribution stage, suggested measures include improving recycling systems [43,44,45] and enhancing waste management practices [46]. At the household level, the main strategies for reducing food waste include the development of food-sharing initiatives [47,48] and educational activities [49,50].

Research conducted in Poland and other countries indicates that the primary reason for food waste in households—including fruits and vegetables as well as other food products—is the loss of their consumable qualities due to overly long storage [43,51,52,53]. Other commonly reported causes include expired “use-by” dates, over-purchasing, and improper storage conditions [18,21,51,52,54].

Studies have also shown that, similar to other types of food, fruit and vegetable waste levels are influenced by factors such as age, the presence of children in the household, and adherence to vegetarian diets [23].

Considering the significantly lower levels of fruit and vegetable waste in the processing sector, along with the possibilities for reducing losses through diversified uses of processing by-products and modern processing technologies, it appears logical to promote greater use of processed fruit and vegetable products in households. These products have a longer shelf life and could help reduce waste.

Although previous studies have investigated household food waste, many have not distinguished between raw and processed fruit and vegetable products, often treating them as a single category [55,56]. This represents a notable research gap, as these product groups differ significantly in terms of perishability, consumption patterns, and waste dynamics. To address this, the present study analyzes fresh and processed fruits and vegetables separately. In addition, it considers the role of home-based preservation methods—such as freezing or thermal processing—in mitigating waste. This approach offers practical insights into waste-reduction strategies and contributes to the development of sustainability-oriented interventions at the household level. This was the objective of the current study. The following research hypotheses were formulated:

H1. 

Processed fruits and vegetables are wasted by consumers to a lesser extent than raw ones.

H2. 

The factors differentiating the level of waste of raw and processed fruits and vegetables are age, education, household size, and income.

H3. 

The greatest impact on the level of waste of both raw and processed fruits and vegetables comes from factors such as purchasing excessive quantities and missing the expiration date.

H4. 

Home processing of fruits and vegetables reduces their waste.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Design and Sample Collection

This study was conducted in form of an online survey at the end of 2024 and included a sample of 1100 participants. A professional research agency organized this study using the Computer-Assisted Web Interviewing (CAWI) method, facilitated by the agency’s dedicated software. Before beginning the questionnaire, participants received clear and concise information regarding this study’s objectives, along with assurances of anonymity and data confidentiality. Throughout this study, participants remained anonymous; no personal or identifying information, such as names, surnames, or IP addresses, was collected. This study did not involve the collection of sensitive data or health-related information, nor did it include any experimental procedures. The entire process complied with the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR 2016/679) and incorporated additional privacy protection measures, such as data pseudonymization and aggregation, to ensure the security of the information provided by participants. Participants had the right to withdraw from this study at any stage, and their responses would be excluded from the analysis. Written informed consent was obtained from all respondents prior to their participation, and the recruitment process was entirely voluntary. Quota sampling was employed to select respondents, ensuring that the study sample accurately reflected the population of Poland in terms of gender and age distribution.

2.2. Description of Questionnaire and Data Analysis

The research questionnaire was divided into three parts. The first part focused on consumer behavior related to food purchasing and preparation. Respondents were asked whether they were responsible for grocery shopping and to indicate the primary sources of meals in their households (such as home-cooked, catering, ready-to-eat from stores, or eaten outside the home). Additionally, questions assessed habits like making shopping lists and the frequency of food waste, as well as awareness and attitudes towards food waste. Responses in this section were collected using various scales, including 5-point scales (e.g., 1—never, 5—always) and single-choice answers reflecting personal views. The second part addressed the scope, causes, and motivations related to food waste. Respondents assessed how often specific types of food were wasted in their households, including a detailed breakdown of fruits and vegetables into raw (unprocessed) and processed forms. They were asked to estimate the proportion of each food group wasted (e.g., 1–25%, 26–50%, etc.). Furthermore, participants evaluated the frequency of various factors contributing to food waste (like expired products, poor storage, or overbuying) on a 5-point scale. The questionnaire also examined reasons for discarding raw fruits and vegetables (e.g., mold, signs of aging, or prolonged storage) and inquired how frequently different preventive actions were undertaken (such as buying appropriate quantities, freezing, or composting).

The third part collected demographic, economic, and social characteristics of the respondents. This section included data on gender, age, place of residence, education level, household size, and income per household member.

Descriptive statistics were used to present the characteristics of the study participants. Both categorical and metric variables (such as age, education, and financial status), expressed in interval form, were reported as percentages (%). To compare the frequency of fruit and vegetable waste between selected groups (i.e., fruits vs. vegetables; raw vs. processed), the Mann–Whitney U test was applied because the data did not follow a normal distribution. Differences between categorical variables were assessed using the chi-square test of independence.

The Spearman rank correlation coefficient was employed to evaluate the relationship between demographic, economic, and social characteristics of respondents and the level of fruit and vegetable waste—both raw and processed. To compare food waste levels across more than two independent groups, the Kruskal–Wallis H test was used.

Two multiple regression models were developed to examine the influence of self-reported reasons for food waste on the level of discarded food. The dependent variables were the levels of raw and processed fruit and vegetable waste, while the independent variables were the stated reasons for discarding food. Only statistically significant predictors (p < 0.05) were included in the models.

Additionally, two logistic regression models were constructed to assess the relationship between anti-waste behaviors and the declaration of not wasting raw fruits or vegetables. The dependent variable in this case was the declaration of not wasting a particular type of food (a binary variable: 1 = do not waste, 0 = waste), with the predicted outcome being “do not waste.” The independent variables (predictors) included specific behaviors aimed at reducing waste, measured using a five-point Likert scale (1 = never, 5 = always). Odds ratios (OR) were calculated, and the Wald test was used to assess the significance of the predictors.

3. Results

3.1. Characteristics of the Survey Sample

The characteristics of the respondents can be found in

Table 1. Characteristics of the population.

Age	n	%
18–34	287	26.09
35–54	397	36.09
Over 55	416	37.82
Gender	n	%
Woman	576	52.36
Man	524	47.64
Place of residence
Village	265	24.09
City up to 50,000 residents	247	22.45
City 50,000–200,000 residents	270	24.54
City over 200,000 residents	318	28.92
Education
Primary	36	3.27
Vocational	111	10.09
Secondary	487	44.27
Higher	466	42.34
Number of persons in the household
1	125	11.36
2	296	26.91
3	285	25.91
4	240	21.82
5 and more	154	14.00
Income
Up to PLN 1500 (EUR 352.11) *	93	8.45
PLN 1501–2000	138	12.55
PLN 2001–2500	147	13.36
PLN 2501–3000	200	18.18
>PLN 3000	522	47.46

* according to the National Polish Bank exchange rate accessed on 11 June 2025.

. The study sample consisted of 1100 respondents. The majority of participants were aged over 55 (37.8%), followed closely by those aged 35 to 54 (36.1%) and 18 to 34 (26.1%). Women represented 52.4% of the sample. Respondents were fairly evenly distributed across various types of residence, with the largest group living in cities with populations exceeding 200,000 residents (28.9%). Most participants had secondary (44.3%) or higher education (42.3%). Households generally included two members (26.9%) or three members (25.9%). Almost half of the participants (47.5%) reported a monthly income exceeding PLN 3000.

3.2. Level of Waste of Raw and Processed Fruits and Vegetables

The results of the empirical study indicated that consumers waste processed fruits and vegetables to a lesser extent compared to raw products. A significantly higher proportion of respondents declared that they do not throw away processed fruits (47.91%) and vegetables (49.27%) compared to raw ones (34.91 and 35.09%, respectively).

Between 1 and 25% of raw fruits and vegetables were wasted by 45.64 and 47.64% of respondents, respectively, while, for processed products, the respective figures were 26 and 29.92%. A similar percentage of respondents declared wasting 26 to 50% of both raw and processed fruits and vegetables (11.09 and 11.72% for raw; 11.72 and 11.63% for processed).

Waste levels above 75% were indicated by 2.64 (raw fruits) and 1.82% (raw vegetables), compared to 0.82 and 1.45% for processed fruits and vegetables, respectively (Figure 1).

The Mann–Whitney U test revealed statistically significant differences in the frequency of discarding raw versus processed products, both for fruits and vegetables individually and combined (p < 0.0001). The mean ranks for raw products were significantly higher than for processed ones (fruits: 1216.7 vs. 984.3; vegetables: 1193.7 vs. 1007.3; fruits and vegetables combined: 1452.4 vs. 976.5), confirming a lower level of waste for processed products (

Table 2. Relationship between waste levels of raw and processed fruits and vegetables (n = 1100).

Group	Mean Rank	p-Value
Raw fruits	1216,7	<0.0001
Processed fruits	984.3
Raw vegetables	1193.7	<0.0001
Processed vegetables	1007.3
Raw fruits and vegetables	1452.4	<0.0001
Raw fruits and vegetables	976.5

).

The analysis of the impact of respondents’ demographic, economic, and social characteristics on the level of waste of raw and processed fruits and vegetables showed that the level of raw fruit and vegetable waste significantly differs depending on place of residence, education, and income. In the case of processed products, the differentiating factors were age, place of residence, household size, and income. For processed fruits and vegetables, a weak positive correlation was also found with household size, and a negative one with the size of the place of residence (

Table 3. Impact of demographic, economic, and social characteristics of respondents on the level of waste of raw and processed fruits and vegetables (n = 1100, data in %).

Specification	Raw Fruits and Vegetables					Processed Fruits and Vegetables
	1 *	2	3	p **	S ***/p	1 *	2	3	p **	S ***/p
Gender
Male	31.49	62.6	5.92	0.3587	-	49.81	46.56	3.63	0.0858	-
Female	27.6	66.49	5.9			55.21	40.1	4.69
Age
18–34	28.22	64.11	7.67	0.1417	−0.098 0.0012	48.08 a	47.39 a	4.53 a	0.0413	−0.063 0.0375
35–54	26.7	68.51	4.79			49.62 a	46.1 a	4.28 a
55+	32.93	61.3	5.77			58.65 a	37.5 b	3.85 a,b
Place of residence
Village	25.66 a	63.77 a	10.57 b	0.0082	−0.034 0.2656	41.13 a	53.21 b	5.66 b	0.0003	−0.143 <0.0001
City up to 50,000 residents	34.01 a	61.13 a	4.86 a			52.63 a	42.51 a	4.86 a
City 50,000–200,000 residents	27.78 a	67.78 a	4.44 a			53.7 a	43.33 a	2.96 a
City over 200,000 residents	30.5 a	65.41 a	4.09 a			61.32 a	35.22 b	3.46 a,b
Education
Primary	41.67 a	41.67 b	16.67 a	<0.0001	0.066 0.0296	41.67	47.22	11.11	0.1249	−0.062 0.0389
Vocational	36.04 a	54.05 b	9.91 a			45.05	48.65	6.31
Secondary	32.03 a	62.63 a	5.34 a			54.41	41.48	4.11
Higher	24.25 a	71.03 b	4.72 a			53.43	43.35	3.22
Number of persons in the household
1	32	60.8	7.2	0.1423	0.070 0.0197	59.2 a	33.6 b	7.2 a	0.0002	0.110 0.0002
2	29.73	63.18	7.09			57.43 a	38.51 a	4.05 a
3	31.58	62.81	5.61			57.19 a	38.25 a	4.56 a
4	23.33	73.33	3.33			43.75 a	54.17 b	2.08 a
5 and more	32.47	60.39	7.14			43.51 a	51.95 b	4.55 a,b
Income
Up to PLN 1500 (352.11 EUR)	34.41 a	52.69 a	12.9 b	0.0041	−0.022 0.4656	49.46 a	40.86 a	9.68 b	0.0009	−0.080 0.0083
PLN 1501–2000	31.16 a,b	59.42 b	9.42 a			48.55 a	47.1 a	4.35 a
PLN 2001–2500	24.49 a,b	73.47 b	2.04 a			40.14 a	57.14 b	2.72 a,b
PLN 2501–3000	27.5 a	66.5 a	6.00 a			52.5 a	44.5 a	3.00 a
>PLN 3000	30.27 a	64.94 a	4.79 a			57.85 a	38.12 b	4.02 a,b

* 1—do not waste; 2—waste up to 50%; 3—waste more than 50%; ** statistical significance of differences—chi-squared test; *** Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient; and a,b—the same letters indicate no statistically significant differences between the proportions in the columns.

).

3.3. Reasons for Fruit and Vegetable Waste

The analysis of average ratings for the reasons behind wasting raw and processed fruits and vegetables revealed that the primary cause is “missing the expiration date,” which received an average rating of 2.52. This rating is statistically significantly higher than the other reasons. In comparison, the significance ratings for the remaining reasons ranged from 2.12 to 2.23, but there were no statistically significant differences among them (Figure 2).

3.4. The Impact of Reasons for Wasting Raw Fruits and Vegetables on the Level of Waste

A multiple regression analysis revealed that, at the significance level of α = 0.05, all the explanatory (independent) variables had a significant impact on the dependent variable, which was the level of waste for raw fruits and vegetables. The variable with the greatest influence on the scale of losses was “missing the expiration date,” where each unit increase in this factor was associated with an increase in waste by 0.277 (β₁ = 0.277). Other significant determinants of waste included “lack of time and/or ideas for using ingredients” (β₆ = 0.158) and “buying too much food” (β₄ = 0.154). Smaller effects were observed for factors such as “preparing portions that are too large” (β₅ = 0.134), “purchasing poor-quality products” (β₃ = 0.124), and “improper food storage” (β₂ = 0.102) (

Table 4. Impact of reasons for wasting raw fruits and vegetables on the level of waste (n = 1100).

Specification	Parameter Estimate	Standard Error	Type	Parameter Estimate	Standard Error
	3.373	0.15	1206.7	509.52	<0.0001
Missing the expiration date	0.277	0.06	56.9	24.03	<0.0001
Improper food storage	0.102	0.06	6.5	2.77	0.0962
Purchasing poor-quality products	0.124	0.06	8.7	3.67	0.0557
Buying too much food	0.154	0.07	12.2	5.17	0.0232
Preparing portions that are too large	0.134	0.07	9.6	4.05	0.0444
Lack of time and/or ideas for using ingredients	0.158	0.06	13.7	5.8	0.0162
Missing the expiration date	0.277	0.06	56.9	24.03	<0.0001

).

3.5. Methods of Preventing Waste of Raw Fruits and Vegetables in the Household

In the logistic regression model concerning the wasting of raw fruits, each increase in agreement with the statement “I buy an appropriate quantity” increased the odds of not wasting fruits by 68.1% (OR: 1.681; 95% CI: 1.39–2.04). The decision to freeze fruits increased the likelihood of not wasting them by 24.5% (OR: 1.245; 95% CI: 1.01–1.54). On the other hand, giving fruits to other people reduced the odds of achieving the predicted value of the dependent variable by 22.3% (OR: 0.777; 95% CI: 0.64–0.95), while composting reduced it by 20% (OR: 0.800; 95% CI: 0.69–0.93) (

Table 5. Factors influencing the non-waste of raw fruits (n = 1100).

Specification	Estimate	Point Estimate	95% Wald Confidence Limits	Standard Error	Wald Chi-Square	Pr > ChiSq
	0.473			0.431	1.207	0.272
I buy an appropriate quantity	0.519	1.681	1.387	2.038	0.098	27.972
I cook/process them with heat	−0.056	0.946	0.766	1.168	0.107	0.267
I freeze them	0.219	1.245	1.009	1.535	0.107	4.171
I give them to others	−0.253	0.777	0.638	0.946	0.101	6.324
I compost	−0.223	0.8	0.688	0.93	0.077	8.445

).

Similar relationships were observed in the logistic regression model concerning raw vegetables. Each point increase in agreement with the statement “I buy an appropriate quantity” was associated with a 64.7% increase in the odds of not wasting vegetables (OR: 1.647; 95% CI: 1.37–1.99). Freezing vegetables also increased this likelihood—by 25% for each point increase in agreement with this statement (OR: 1.250; 95% CI: 1.01–1.55). On the other hand, giving vegetables to others or composting was associated with a decrease in the odds of achieving the predicted value of the dependent variable—by 30% in the case of giving away (OR: 0.700; 95% CI: 0.57–0.86) and by 22.8% in the case of composting (OR: 0.772; 95% CI: 0.66–0.90) (

Table 6. Factors influencing the non-waste of raw vegetables (n = 1100).

Specification	Estimate	Point Estimate	95% Wald Confidence Limits	Standard Error	Wald Chi-Square	Pr > ChiSq
	0.662			0.4297	2.3736	0.1234
I buy an appropriate quantity	0.499	1.647	1.366	1.986	0.096	27.262
I cook/process them with heat	0.046	1.047	0.847	1.293	0.108	0.179
I freeze them	0.223	1.25	1.008	1.55	0.110	4.129
I give them to others	−0.356	0.7	0.572	0.858	0.104	11.799
I compost	−0.259	0.772	0.662	0.901	0.078	10.867

).

4. Discussion

The conducted study demonstrated that, in line with the assumption made in hypothesis 1, waste more significantly affects raw fruits and vegetables than processed ones. It can be stated with a high degree of confidence that this is primarily due to the fact that fruit and vegetable preserves have a longer shelf life [56,57,58], which implies the possibility of fully utilizing the supplies of these products.

This study explores the demographic, economic, and social factors influencing the waste of raw and processed fruits and vegetables. Based on existing research findings, including sources [17,18,19], and additional studies on fruits and vegetables [18], hypothesis 2 posits that age, education, household size, and income are the factors that differentiate the levels of waste in raw and processed produce.

The results only partially validate this assumption. It was found that the waste of raw products is statistically influenced by place of residence, education, and income. For processed products, age was also found to have an impact. Additionally, a small positive correlation with household size was recorded, while a negative correlation existed with the size of the place of residence.

Finding clear support or contradiction for these results in the literature is challenging due to the inconsistencies in previous findings regarding fruit and vegetable waste. For instance, studies [59,60] indicated that people living in urban areas produce more waste, contradicting the findings of this study. On the other hand, study [61] found no relationship between waste levels and place of residence.

There has been mixed evidence regarding the effect of education on fruit and vegetable waste. While some studies [59,61] found no significant impact, study [62] did report an effect of education on food waste.

Regarding income, some studies suggest a positive correlation with waste levels [63,64,65,66,67], others indicate a negative correlation [68,69], and still others demonstrate statistically significant differences [70,71]. Meanwhile, the studies of [72,73] suggest that there is no link between income and waste.

When examining age, the majority of studies show a negative correlation with waste levels [60,64,68,73,74,75], while only a few indicate the opposite [76,77]. The authors’ study did not observe a significant relationship in this regard.

As for household size, most studies indicate that smaller households generate less waste than larger ones, a finding that the authors also confirmed. However, it is noted that the amount of food waste per capita decreases as household size increases [64,73,75,76,77,78].

It is important to acknowledge that these findings may not fully represent populations with diverse social, educational, or economic backgrounds, where the relevance of factors like education, income, or residence may vary. Additionally, cultural influences, not covered in this article, could significantly impact food waste. Research from 28 European Union countries shows that national culture affects the level of fruit and vegetable waste, particularly through two key dimensions: uncertainty avoidance and indulgence. In countries with high levels of these traits, consumers tend to buy more perishable goods than they can consume, resulting in waste. Those with strong uncertainty avoidance often purchase food “just in case,” which leads to spoilage, while high indulgence encourages impulsive buying without the realistic consideration of needs [79].

The analysis of the reasons for food waste among raw and processed fruits and vegetables revealed that respondents identified “missing the expiration date” as the most significant factor. When examining how the reasons listed in the survey impacted the level of waste for raw fruits and vegetables, it was found that “missing the expiration date” had the most substantial effect on product losses. Other important factors contributing to waste included “lack of time and/or ideas for using ingredients” and “buying too much food”.

For processed products, the primary factor impacting waste levels was identified as “lack of the habit of checking food supplies in the refrigerator.” Less significant factors included “improper food storage” and “purchasing low-quality products”.

Previous studies have shown that the main reason for wasting fruits and vegetables, along with other food items in households, is the loss of their consumption properties due to prolonged storage [43,51,52,53]. Other frequently mentioned causes include exceeding expiration dates, buying too much food, and inadequate storage conditions, which align with the findings regarding raw fruits and vegetables [18,21,51,52,54]. These factors driving food waste are especially evident in high-income countries, particularly at the retail and household levels. Socio-economic factors and consumer preferences play a significant role in this issue. Over-purchasing, often due to bulk promotions and aesthetic standards, along with the misunderstanding of expiration dates, significantly contributes to food losses [80,81]. However, the key reason for waste in processed products—“lack of the habit of checking food supplies”—has not been addressed in previous research.

The results obtained partially confirm Hypothesis 3, which posited that the most influential factors contributing to the waste of both raw and processed fruits and vegetables include “buying too much food” and “missing the expiration date.

Since one of the main factors influencing the wastage of fruits and vegetables is buying them in excess and exceeding the use-by date, it is worth considering the use of smart packaging, for both fresh and processed fruits and vegetables, as it can be one of the solutions to this problem. Such packaging, equipped with sensors and labels that monitor the condition of the product in real time, can provide consumers with up-to-date information about the freshness and quality of food, facilitating informed purchasing and consumption decisions that reduce the level of product waste [82]. In addition, other studies indicate the need for greater reflection on the content of “best-before” date messages, indicating that appropriate wording can positively influence less food waste, as well as the knowledge of appropriate food storage methods [83,84,85]. Another research problem addressed in this study was the extent to which the home processing of fruits and vegetables contributes to reducing losses of these products compared to other food waste prevention strategies within respondents’ households. Logistic regression analysis revealed that, for both fruits and vegetables, the strongest predictors of non-wastage were respondents’ agreement with the statements, “I buy an appropriate quantity” and “I freeze products.” No significant relationship was found between agreement with the statement “I process them using heat” and the level of waste.

The importance of rationalizing food purchases as a strategy for reducing food waste is supported by other studies [86,87,88]. Additionally, the study referenced by [89] confirmed the significant impact of food freezing on limiting wastage. Moreover, the methods and strategies for reducing food waste vary significantly between countries. In highly developed nations, where refrigeration and freezing technologies are readily available, these techniques are among the most common for minimizing food loss. In contrast, lower-income countries tend to rely more on approaches such as utilizing leftovers through cooking and improving purchasing planning [90].

The results partially confirm Hypothesis 4, which posited that processing fruits and vegetables at home reduces the level of waste. These findings contribute to the ongoing discussion about strategies for reducing fruit and vegetable waste in households and highlight the role of food processing in this context. The data suggest that both the use of processed products and the home processing of raw fruits and vegetables can aid in waste reduction.

To determine specific relationships and better quantify the benefits, it would be necessary to conduct economic analyses that consider total losses in industrial processing, processed food distribution, and household consumption. It is worth noting that modern processing methods can significantly reduce losses in the first stage of this process [91].

Another important issue that needs to be addressed in the context of expanding the use of fruit and vegetable products as a strategy to reduce waste is the potential loss of nutritional value during processing [92,93,94]. However, given that modern processing technologies minimize the loss of food components [42,95,96] a broader and more in-depth discussion on this topic would be valuable.

5. Strengths, Limitations, and Future Research

This study offers both cognitive and practical value by distinguishing between raw and processed fruits and vegetables—an approach rarely seen in previous research, which often merges these categories. By analyzing these groups separately and examining home preservation methods like freezing and thermal processing, this study provides insights for sustainability strategies at the household level. The large sample size of 1100 respondents enhances the reliability of findings, highlighting significant correlations between fruit and vegetable waste and factors such as income, education, household size, and residence.

However, several limitations exist. The self-reported data may introduce bias, as respondents might report ideal behaviors instead of actual practices, leading to underreporting influenced by social desirability. Responses may also reflect exceptional purchasing events rather than daily habits, distorting the true picture of food waste. Cultural context was not considered, even though different norms can significantly influence attitudes toward waste. Additionally, this study did not account for seasonality, although research suggests food waste is typically lower in winter than in summer.

While the findings focus on Polish households, they may not be applicable to other countries with different economic and cultural contexts. Future research should replicate this study in varied settings and use more objective tools, such as food waste diaries or household audits, for measuring actual waste.

To minimize nutritional losses and waste, future work should develop effective home food processing methods and provide clear guidelines for storing fruits and vegetables. Providing information at points of sale regarding storage techniques and processing options can further enhance waste reduction efforts. Expanding research to consider national and regional cultural variables will help develop more effective, evidence-based strategies to address food waste.

6. Conclusions

This study revealed that the amount of processed fruit and vegetable waste in Polish households is significantly lower than that of raw produce. The level of waste for both raw and processed products varies based on factors such as residence location, education level, income, and household size. Additionally, age plays a significant role in waste related to processed fruits and vegetables. The main cause of household losses for fruits and vegetables is the expiration of the best-before date.

For raw products, the primary contributors to waste include missing the best-before date, a lack of time or ideas for using the ingredients, and purchasing excessive quantities. In contrast, the waste associated with processed products is largely due to a lack of habit in checking food supplies in the refrigerator, improper food storage, and buying low-quality items.

In the context of achieving the Sustainable Development Goals, addressing food waste—particularly of fresh fruits and vegetables—remains a significantly urgent issue, as households in higher-income countries continue to be responsible for most losses, especially of highly perishable products.

To effectively reduce the waste of raw fruits and vegetables, strategies such as purchasing appropriate quantities and freezing surplus are recommended. The study results show that home food processing, such as freezing, is one of the most effective household methods for reducing fruit and vegetable losses, while thermal processing showed no significant link to waste reduction.

While this study confirmed that food processing helps reduce the waste of fruits and vegetables, further analysis is needed to quantify its benefits. It is also crucial to develop and implement new or previously tested methods of fruit and vegetable processing at an industrial scale, aimed at minimizing both waste and nutritional losses of these health-promoting products. Moreover, greater efforts should be directed toward raising consumer awareness about the importance of planning fruit and vegetable purchases and managing them wisely, including through home processing, to reduce losses.

Additionally, it would be beneficial to include clear and practical information at the point of sale or on the packaging of raw fruits and vegetables regarding proper storage methods and possible processing options (e.g., freezing), to support more informed and waste-reducing consumer behavior.