While retailers lead the initiative for a universal produce-container footprint, grower/shippers of some commodities are finding themselves pulled in separate directions, torn between providing quality product for consumers, and implementing fundamental packaging changes that satisfy supermarket buying offices.
A pair of commodity group representatives detailed their efforts to conform with the evolving standard -- at the same time noting the difficulty involved in the modernization of packaging and shipping systems that have been in existence for decades.
One particular source of friction for grower/shippers surfaced this past year. According to Richard Matoain, president of the California Grape & Tree Fruit League, Fresno, Calif., retail buyers who requested produce items in the standard 16-inch by 24-inch box proceeded to actually purchase product in different container sizes.
"A number of shippers have told me that, suddenly, during the middle of the season, the retailer moved over to a different type of package -- and it happened during the heat of the season, when that buyer could purchase that product at a lower price [from someone else]," said Matoain, adding that the actions demonstrate that price is still driving the purchase, not packaging.
"That's a sorry state of affairs, and it costs a lot of credibility with our grower/shippers, when they're expected to pack in these new boxes, and yet the buyer doesn't come through," he said.
Currently, strawberry grower/shippers use a 16-inch by 20-inch box, slightly shorter than the industry standard. Though the strawberry container size fits on a standard 48-inch by 40-inch pallet, increasing the box dimensions presents a number of problems, said another industry official.
"Because we do have inner as well as outer packages, we have a challenge in going to the 16- by 24-inch [standard]," said Cindy Jewell, executive vice president of the California Strawberry Commission, Watsonville, Calif.
A CSC committee has been formed to examine several issues involved in further defining a box standard for its products that is acceptable to the entire industry.
"Ultimately, we [want] to satisfy the retailer with this change," she added. "But we as a commission are working with the industry to focus on the consumer."
Since strawberries are delicate and require field packing, the committee began its review within field operations. Here, Jewell noted that any new outer box will still have to be able to accommodate the inner retail packs.
"[The box] has to be worker-friendly. The harvesters in the field have to be able to work with whatever box we conform to," she said. "And, the boxes need to be interlocked so they stay on the pallet as they go around the corners and up the hills and into the cooler."
Cooling problems are also being looked at by the commission, since the current 6-down pallet configuration used by the strawberry industry would have to change to a 5-down design to adhere to the industry standard. Jewell noted that the updated pallet pattern greatly reduces forced-air cooling abilities.
"With a 6-down footprint, the air goes through the boxes uniformly, efficiently and quickly," she said. "With the 5-down footprint, it has to go through the heads and butts on one end, and that creates some challenges for those boxes."
Any industry box standard will also have an impact on transportation, and the CSC committee noted that strawberries may be particularly sensitive to such container changes, since the product already has a short season, and a shelf life limited to 10 days, in most cases.
"Making sure we can fit the same amount or more on the truck is critical," Jewell said, noting that a change to a 5-down system -- using the same eight, one-pound retail packs per case as today -- would create a stack nearly 20 boxes tall, an unwieldy height.
"We need the inside of the box to be uniform, as well as the outside of the box," she said. "Right now, corrugated and RPCs have completely different inside dimensions."
Until box manufacturers reach a consensus on interior/exterior uniformity, the strawberry committee can't even develop a prototype box to test, she said. The commission's "action plan" includes working with packaging manufacturers to develop updated inner-container criteria; various tests of product configured in the retailer-preferred 5-down footprint; and development of specific strawberry industry recommendations for release to all participants in the produce supply chain.
Matoain, speaking for grape and stone-fruit grower members, agreed one footprint cannot adequately serve all commodities. He noted that the variety of box sizes is in direct relation to the needs of the commodity shipped, rather than grower/shipper preference.
"Certainly, they're in the current boxes for a good reason. One size does not fit all," he said.
Matoain's organization, representing 80% of the table grape, stone fruit and pulp fruit grown, packed and shipped from California, has identified a number of potential problems, such as overdrying.
"That's more specific to the [returnable plastic containers]. On top of that, their cooling efficiencies are undetermined," he said, adding that, though RPCs have slots on the sides and bottom, some grower/shippers reported these plastic containers sometimes took longer to cool than traditional boxes.
The new 16-inch by 24-inch standard footprint is also much too large for some commodities to be packed safely, which can lead to damaged product, he added.
In an example, Matoain described what could happen to 25-pound, volume-filled peaches. In the new standard box, the fruit forms a pyramid with the bulk of the product on the bottom and only 10 pieces on the top.
"When that fruit is handled, transported and rolled around in the truck, that fruit is free to move from one side of the box to the other," Matoain said. "We believe this fruit can be bruised very easily. That's not good for the retailer, and ultimately, not good for the consumer."
In contrast, the current 12-inch by 20-inch shoebox "allows the container to be well-filled to within one inch of the lid and transported adequately."
Handling some produce in the larger container size can also promote box torquing, or twisting, said Matoain. The footprint also presents logistics problems that could ultimately confuse retail buyers in certain cases, he added.
"Sure, you'll get a size 64, but all of a sudden the number of pieces in that box have changed from the other boxes that a particular shipper has been sending," he said.
The bigger size also impacts freight costs that will have to be paid by the retailer. According to Matoain, suppliers forced to use the new standard will not be able cube out as effectively as before.
The organization determined that the larger box will reduce the number of boxes per truck by as much as 3%. When that is divided by the freight charge, the cost-per-package increase can be as high as 32 cents.
"That's going to have to be paid by the retailer," Matoain said, adding that the reductions in product count, per box, will require additional orders for that particular commodity to maintain the volume desired -- another source of cost increases.
The organization is examining options it can present to the entire industry for review, including development of a new tab standard that would permit co-mingling of the standard 16-by-24 footprint with the 16-by-20 box preferred by suppliers.
