Supermarkets share the blame for our bad shopping habits We wasted far less food when there was no supermarket culture, when what we bought was the food we needed - as opposed to what is now skilfully marketed to us. It does not shock me so much as provoke anger to hear that, according to the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, we are throwing away half the food sold to us by supermarkets, worth some £480 a year per family. Put in context, there is even something obscene about the situation. Food inflation has rocketed in the past two years, and prices will rise again due to poor harvests in 2012. Meanwhile, food shortages in developing countries lead to guilt-inducing news reports of starving people. Why are we so wasteful? There is clearly enough food to go around in Britain, or so much would not end up in landfill. It is too easy to blame a profligate consumer, and they do exist, but shopping for food frustrates efforts to be careful. Consumers do not demand a pack of six sticky buns, and certainly not the "Bogof" deal that means that they get 12 for the same sum. We all buy too many grapes, for instance, not realising how quickly they deteriorate - or those bumper packs of chicken joints, using only half because the "best before" date comes too quickly. In British supermarkets, the majority of food is packaged in quantities decided by the retailer. But tours of supermarkets almost anywhere else show that it is a trait peculiar to our country. The fresh produce sections in French, American, Danish and even Dubai supermarkets are almost exclusively stocked with loose food. When the shopper estimates the right amount, they are more likely to take what is needed. Of course, the shopper has a responsibility too. Those chicken joints can be made into something to eat later in the week, or frozen. But our four, highly competitive major retailers who service more than 80 per cent of the population have one main concern: their profits. Do they care that half the food they sell is going in the bin? There is little evidence of that. Never mind the obvious point that if we are wasting food it must ultimately affect the price - to care might even serve the health of the nation. Wrinkly apples and limp vegetables are deemed unsaleable, then dumped before being sold, when they could be taken off shelves and processed into soups or puree for baby food. Meat approaching twilight can be recycled into stock, a cheap and nutritious food that few people get the time to make. It would be a simple matter, too, for supermarkets to try seductive campaigning, and offer recipe cards showing how to make the most of leftovers. Much of the problem is also due to the huge choice offered in the superstores. "Choice" is held up as a mark of success for the retailer, when it is actually a contributing factor to waste. Take one look at the breakfast cereal aisle - like Victoria Falls, you can barely see the end of it. How many are tried, rejected and go stale at the back of the cupboard? There's no doubt that self-service shopping (often done as a weekly raid and, in my case, in something of a trance) will result in over-buying. When the only interactions between shopper and retailer are signs offering "three for two" or "reduced to half price," you end up brain-washed, later ditching what is not used. A butcher or greengrocer will ask, not tell you, what you want. But let's not be romantic. Supermarkets are here to stay and they need to address the problem or face penalties when figures such as these surface. The implication that the retailers are casting pearls before swine is unpleasant and wrong - in this instance we know who is greedy, and it is not shoppers.