We illustrate how collecting data from rejected horticultural produce may give more information about the prevalence of product infestation by pests or diseases than if we only sampled accepted (consignment) produce. Our results show that sampling from rejected product can have different outcomes depending on the selectivity of grading (the rejection process) and relative sensitivity of the inspection of rejected fruit. If rejected produce is more likely to be infested and inspection sensitivity is as high as or higher than for packed fruit, then the rejection process has the following impact: (1) it selectively prevents some infested fruit from entering the consignment, lowering the expected consignment prevalence, and hence, (2) it lowers the chance of the consignment being rejected based on the consignment sample alone. Sampling the reject fruit and finding no infestation (3) further lowers the inferred prevalence in the consignment, but (4) increases the chance of a consignment being rejected if there is no tolerance for detecting infestation within the reject bin. If rejected produce is less or as likely to be infested, then the benefits from (1), (2) and (3) may no longer occur. In many situations, however, sampling from the reject bin can provide greater confidence in product integrity without the loss of packed product to destructive sampling.