The UK government plans to introduce common standards on eco-labels for F&B products. A policy paper outlining objectives says this is primarily to avoid greenwashing and consumer confusion, but the revision could be considered a backslide on previous proposals to move toward a mandatory eco-label system in Britain.

Despite the 20 plus different types of (voluntary) eco-labels used in the UK market, defra recognizes that although many consumers care about the environmental impacts of food, “this often does not translate into the purchase of more sustainable food.”

Environmental impact labels have been regarded as helping to communicate with consumers and lead to them making more informed nclick="updateothersitehits('Articlepage','External','OtherSitelink','Carbon footprint climbdown? UK government revises eco-label policy to avoid greenwashing','Carbon footprint climbdown? UK government revises eco-label policy to avoid greenwashing','340575','https://www.innovamarketinsights.com/trends/sustainability-trends/', 'article','Carbon footprint climbdown? UK government revises eco-label policy to avoid greenwashing');return no_reload();">sustainability choices. But now their robustness is being questioned.

Evidence on eco-labels
With so many different labels on the shelves, consumers are actually becoming more confused and a streamlined approach is needed, the government argues.

However, UK Prime Minister Rishi Sunak has been accused of pulling back on green plans rather than pushing for more. His predecessor, Boris Johnson, had championed eco-labels because they allowed Britain to regain control from previous EU-dictated labeling schemes.

“Government has no plans at present to introduce a mandatory eco-label, nor to endorse an existing or new eco-labeling scheme. Currently, there is limited evidence that eco-labeling has an impact on in-store consumer and business behavior,” the policy paper, published yesterday, reads.

“However, wher they (eco-labels) are being used, we believe it is important that they provide a fair and accurate representation of a product’s environmental impact, so that genuinely more sustainable products can successfully differentiate themselves and consumers are not misled.”

The UK government calling for eco-label standardization to avoid greenwashing comes on the heels of Unilever facing criticism for pulling back on ESG goals. The multinational recently revealed plans to scale back some of its nclick="updateothersitehits('Articlepage','External','OtherSitelink','Carbon footprint climbdown? UK government revises eco-label policy to avoid greenwashing','Carbon footprint climbdown? UK government revises eco-label policy to avoid greenwashing','340575','https://www.foodingredientsfirst.com/news/unilever-u-turn-multinational-faces-criticism-after-esg-strategy-rethink.html', 'article','Carbon footprint climbdown? UK government revises eco-label policy to avoid greenwashing');return no_reload();">sustainability targets, including more responsible packaging, backing for SMEs and support for the living wage.

Quantifying environmental impacts
The government, therefore, plans to address the quantification of environmental impacts and improve the data on which this is based.

One of the crucial issues when standardizing eco-labels is addressing how to quantify product level environmental impacts and ensuring sufficient data quality and availability.

Currently a wide range of metrics quantifying product level environmental impacts are used in existing eco-labeling schemes to produce a score or rating used on an eco-label. Some schemes use solely greenhouse gas emissions, while others take a multi-metric approach, including aspects such as biodiversity or land use, water pollution and water usage.

“The scientific community lacks consensus around which are the best metrics to measure the environmental impact of food. There are also wide variations in the extent to which accurate calculation methods and good quality data are available for each metric. In addition, there are trade-offs between metrics used in multi-metric schemes, for example, a product which produces low carbon emissions, but uses a lot of water,” the policy paper says.

The broad choice of metrics can also have unintended consequences, such as perverse incentives or trade-offs with other food system issues, such as nutrition and animal welfare.

“The picture on metrics is complex, and the decision on which metrics to include is a challenging one.”

The policy paper comes under the Food Data Transparency Partnership (FDTP), a project between government, industry and experts that aims to improve the availability, quality and comparability of data in the food supply chain to create a positive change in the food system toward the production and sale of more environmentally sustainable and healthier food and drink.

The FDTP has now laid down a blueprint for the future, but it’s unclear on how to take this issue forward in the UK, with no firm conclusions currently.

Climate stamps
Meanwhile, the issue of eco-labels has come to the fore in the Netherlands recently as Dutch retailer Albert Heijn now has 130 own-brand products carrying a “climate stamp.”

In addition, 1,100 online products also have an emissions stamp and there are plans to expand the initiative. These types of eco-labels spell out the carbon footprint of a particular product.

Although this represents a small fraction of the supermarket’s 20,000 own-brand products, it is a step in the right direction, according to Ceel Elemans, sector specialist food at ING Sector Banking.

“It will only have the desired effect if it is widely applied by supermarkets and the food industry. Hopefully, this initiative will be the starting point for that,” he says.

“It’s time for all supermarkets and food companies to put the climate impact on products. This helps to make the food chain more sustainable.”