Understanding environmental labelling

Dietitians are very familiar with using food labels to support clients to find foods suitable for their health and nutrition goals. But how many understand how to check whether food products are produced in a way that benefits the environment?

Retailers and food manufacturers are members of multiple schemes and industry benchmarking projects that support their environmental and ethical commitments in the widest sense. This may be by joining schemes like the Plastic Pact or the Carbon Trust standards.

Many also commit to reducing carbon emissions at a food systems level. For example, ‘regenerative farming’ practices like this example from BDA corporate members Danone can restore soil health so that can draw carbon from the atmosphere, strengthening biodiversity and retain more water.

For consumers, various logos of UK standards and kitemarks like Red Tractor, MSC, Organic, British Lion, RSPCA Assured, Fairtrade are visible on pack. Most are related to the production in some way so may be perceived as adding an environmental message and unintentionally create a ‘greenwash’ effect for the product.

When we worked on the Sustainable Baskets initiative, we mapped these in some detail to understand the extent to which environmental sustainability of the produce was considered in the standards. We found that they generally focus on social impact, food traceability and animal welfare.

So, what is happening to give consumers and nutrition experts more specific product information on the actual carbon footprint of individual products – and what about initiatives to create a single ‘eco-label’?

Are there any climate-specific labels I can look for?

In June, the European Commission called for a “European eco-score” to inform consumers about the ecological impact of different products. Some in the UK government, including Labour MP Luke Pollard, Shadow Secretary of State for environment, food and rural affairs, want to see clearer labelling on carbon and environmental credentials so consumers can back the brands and products doing the right thing by our planet.

Single scores are reductive by their very nature and most approaches could be criticised for oversimplification in a such a complex picture, but as we know from nutrition labelling each food has positive and less healthy nutrients so the label must be clear to provide actionable information.

Even mature schemes like palm oil labelling experience ongoing debate. RSPO has been criticised by campaign groups like Greenpeace for not going far enough, but the issues of this single ingredient are multifactoral as explained in our FAQ  on its environmental impacts vs those of animal fats.

Here we discuss some mainstream schemes:

Carbon footprinting

Carbon footprinting is considered by many to be the most useful singular metric currently to assess and compare product sustainability across different food types. Access to quality datasets has been an issue in the past but there is an increasing amount of robust data available and discussions are increasing among food manufacturers and retailers.

Although it can’t capture other aspects of sustainability which are also important considerations for dietary changes e.g. the impact of production methods on land, soil and water systems; the health and economic costs of food production; the level of waste across the value chain; welfare standards, it does offer a metric for people to work to.

Carbon footprinting in practice:

One example is Quorn Foods who have been footprinting their core products and using third party accreditation for nearly 10 years.

The carbon footprint for Quorn Mince and Pieces is calculated using primary data from 'Farm to Shop' which accounts for all greenhouse gases emitted from the production of raw materials up until the supermarket, including growing of ingredients, manufacture, packaging, storage and transportation.

In our Sustainable Eats project with Quorn Foods, we worked together to calculate carbon footprints of whole recipes because consumers will find limited information on pack currently so working out your impact across a whole diet is challenging for an individual. The team wanted to demonstrate the carbon footprint metrics in a relatable way within the resource and identified that an average daily figure per person for food is 2.8 kg[1]. This figure from a National Diet and Nutrition survey report also included a target to reduce daily emissions by 1.78kg per person.

To further understand the complexities of this approach, our Sustainable Eats project methodology may help.

EU Ecolabel

The UK has ceased to participate in the Ecolabel scheme since Brexit. It is a voluntary scheme, which means that producers, importers and retailers can choose to apply for the label for their products.

They take a life cycle approach which means starting with extraction – the mining or cultivation of the raw materials, such as cotton (for textiles) or wood (for paper products). It continues with manufacturing and packaging, distribution, use and finally the “end of life” stage, when the product is disposed of or recycled.

Eco-Score

Developed in France by a consortium of food tech businesses, Eco-Score is a front of pack labelling initiative that gives a score out of 100 to individual products which is then adjusted for additional good and less positive features to give a colour coded rating of A to E. It is being piloted by Lidl in Germany, although they stress they are also open to other eco labelling initiatives.

It measures the environmental impacts of a product’s production, packaging and transport, but does not look specifically at biodiversity, animal welfare or pesticides.

Foundation Earth

Foundation Earth – a new NGO made up of international food giants, supermarket chains, the European food innovation body EIT Food, as well as food and environment experts – announced the launch of a pilot project to print an eco-score on selected product packages as of this month.

The Foundation Earth eco-score will rate products from A+ to G according to a method developed by Britain’s Oxford University with the support of WWF. An example label for red lentils shows typical carbon emissions per 100g, water usage and pollution, and a biodiversity score.

The calculation will also consider the environmental impacts of farming, processing, packaging and transportation. For each of these life cycle stages, the impact will be measured in terms of carbon emissions, plus the quantity of water used, the water pollution generated and the impact on biodiversity.

In parallel to the pilot, a Nestlé-sponsored R&D programme is destined to prepare Foundation Earth for a pan-European launch of the label in 2022.

CLEAR manifesto

The Pasture Fed Livestock Association is leading a consortium calling for the development of clear accessible food labels that identify method of production. They say this will respond to the consumer’s desire for greater transparency over how their food is produced.

The PFLA has always argued that current labelling regulations, which mean that the term ‘grass-fed’ can be used to describe meat and dairy products that are ‘predominantly fed on grass, ie which can be just 51% grass-fed, are misleading.

So, what questions can we ask ourselves when buying food?

The picture is complex. There are dozens of schemes under development and until one is validated and accepted widely, mainstream side by side comparisons at the point of purchase for consumers and nutrition experts will be impossible.

Meanwhile, it can be helpful to look at this by category so we have broken this down to map against the recommendations in the One Blue Dot reference guide: