The UK’s Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) has just published research into environmental labelling which suggests a footprint-based omni-label for food is a long way off. Ben Cooper asks Dr Tom MacMillan, executive director of the Food Ethics Council and one of the report’s authors, where this leaves the debate over food eco labelling.
Go deeper with GlobalData
The need for simple, truthful and unambiguous on-product information has become a consumer right. Whether it is about weight or ingredients, price, nutritional content or provenance, consumers are entitled to know exactly what they are buying.
To the heady mix of information being demanded by consumers, we have most recently added environmental criteria. Certainly a large and increasing number of food products carry such information but, as a report just published by the UK’s Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) points out, in a wide range of forms.
The research, conducted jointly by the University of Hertfordshire’s Agricultural and Environmental Research Unit, the Policy Studies Institute (PSI) and the Food Ethics Council (FEC), found that there were essentially four different types of eco labelling in use.
The most common type of environmental label identified in the research features “self-declared” environmental claims, derived by the company and not verified by an independent authority, such as ‘Biodegradable’ or ‘made from xx% recycled material’, with or without a logo.
How well do you really know your competitors?
Access the most comprehensive Company Profiles on the market, powered by GlobalData. Save hours of research. Gain competitive edge.
Thank you!
Your download email will arrive shortly
Not ready to buy yet? Download a free sample
We are confident about the unique quality of our Company Profiles. However, we want you to make the most beneficial decision for your business, so we offer a free sample that you can download by submitting the below form
By GlobalDataA similar category, of which the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) scheme would be an example, includes third-party verification. But still these labels do not rely on a life cycle assessment (LCA) approach or actual measurements. Instead they are generally based on ‘best practice’ criteria.
On the other hand, there are schemes, based on multiple criteria and verified by a third party, where a label certifies that products meet standards based on an LCA. The EU’s Eco Label, which does not cover food, is an example of this type of scheme. A further category follows a similar specification to this but focuses on raw data, such as the quantity of emissions, with evaluation left to the consumer. Many of the carbon labels fall into this category whereby the amount of CO2 emitted, represented in g/unit, is provided on the label.
The multiplicity of labelling schemes has led policymakers and other stakeholders to ponder the feasibility of an omni-label for food, functioning as a sort of environmental kite mark. Indeed, the Defra research was aimed at exploring precisely this possibility.
By looking at what the current range of eco labels being used in the food arena are providing, the researchers concluded that “a considerable amount of scientific development and debate towards achieving standardised techniques for measuring and assessing environmental impacts would be required before a robust outcome-based omni-label for food could become a reality”, even for food products with relatively simple supply chains, such as produce, meat, eggs or milk.
The question of the scheme being “outcome-based” is significant. The majority of labels in the food market deal with specific aspects of sustainability and focus on production practices rather than empirical measurement of impacts.
The Defra report represents an important contribution to the debate over how useful the labelling schemes currently in use in the food market are.
When the researchers from the University of Hertfordshire first spoke publicly about the report’s findings last autumn, rather ahead of when Defra would have liked, the media coverage focused on the limitations of current schemes. The fact that the majority are practice-based rather than outcome-based was presented as a weakness, and the fact that the science currently was not robust enough to allow the development of an outcome-based, environmentally broad, omni-label as a comment on the methodologies employed by labelling schemes currently in use.
Dr Tom MacMillan, executive director of the Food Ethics Council and one of the report’s authors, believes some of the reporting and interpretation of the report was not particularly constructive.
He says the report’s findings confirm that there are labelling schemes currently in use that make “a constructive contribution to sustainability”, adding that some reports had suggested that the science underpinning existing labels is insufficient and therefore they are not worthy of consumer trust “which is not what the report says”.
While developing an omni-label may be a significant challenge and, as MacMillan observes, “very expensive”, it is easy to see why it is an attractive idea.
Consumers are bombarded with a huge amount of information about the environmental properties of products they see in stores. Labelling schemes are one part of this but there are also green claims by companies on packaging and in advertising to be considered. Coincidentally at about the time the report was published, Defra also relaunched its Green Claims website, aimed at providing guidance to consumers and companies about what should be considered a justifiable green claim.
The concern that companies may be misleading consumers with exaggerated or inaccurate claims understandably pervades the debate over environmental labelling. For some, the very presence of so many labels and messages is problematic. Others would suggest that while the multiplicity of messages may not be ideal, it is not inherently a problem if there are sufficiently strong regulatory procedures for dealing with claims or labelling that is misleading or deceptive.
MacMillan is of the view that there should not be an over-emphasis on labelling, particularly as a means of fostering change and the adoption of more sustainable practices in the supply chain.
While there may be an impression that moves towards greater environmental sustainability are driven by public pressure forcing companies to alter their practices, which would suggest a very important role for labelling schemes, the Defra research, which included interviews and workshops with stakeholders encompassing a range of perspectives, seemed to suggest that this is not actually the case, MacMillan says.
“Whether you think labelling is a priority depends on what you think drives change in the sector,” he says. The interviews and workshops suggested that the “more transformative examples of change in food consumption and footprint” had come through changes in business practices to make products comply with certain standards which were not necessarily dependent on a label being placed on the product.
It is little wonder therefore that Defra has been conspicuously quiet on the labelling issue since the research was published. The media coverage of the report last autumn suggests Defra may be under some pressure to act on environmental labelling, and that there would be significant public support for moving in a direction which its research suggests would be costly and not necessarily particularly effective in engineering change.
Moreover, if a government-administered labelling scheme remains voluntary – and if it is not voluntary it is in essence more akin to the imposition of mandatory standards – there is another significant reason why it may not foster dramatic change. As MacMillan points out, labelling schemes tend to be taken up enthusiastically by companies which are already towards the “best practice end” of the spectrum but “arguably a more urgent need is to improve and eliminate worst practice which a label can’t do very well”.
Governments have other ways to address the latter and, MacMillan suggests, this is perhaps where they should devote their energy. So overall, a more effective course of action for government may be to focus on areas where it can bring the particular resources it has to bear. This would mean leaving labelling largely to the corporate or third sectors, which are by and large doing the job at the moment, and focusing more on raising standards through incentives, and of course, legislation.
