More Labels, Less Impact?
The Complicated Rise of Eco-Labels on Food Products
A snapshot of the diversity of eco-labels found on food products.
Source: Self-made; photos sourced from Google Images.
For anyone with an interest in food systems sustainability, walking up and down the aisles of a grocery store these days is quite the experience. A lot of products are now covered in environmentally-oriented labels in addition to the nutrition-based labels that we’re accustomed to seeing. These labels, commonly referred to as “eco-labels,” often focus on a specific aspect of the product, such as the production methods (i.e., organic, regenerative) or the environmental impacts measured through a product’s life cycle (i.e., carbon footprint, water usage).
Unlike price or taste, attributes on eco-labels cannot be assessed independently without the use of additional information tools. If you were to imagine coming across a tomato in the produce aisle, it would be quite difficult to determine if it was grown organically or not in the absence of a label. This economic concept, referred to as information asymmetry, describes a situation in which one party (the producer) possesses more information than the other (the consumer).
Enter eco-labels. While not a new phenomenon (the first eco-label was released in 1978), there has been a significant rise in the development of eco-labels in recent years as public and private organizations have tried to tap into consumers’ increased interest in health, wellness, and sustainability. Today, of the more than 430 eco-labels that exist worldwide, 147 are food-related.
Aperçu de la diversité des éco-labels pour les produits alimentaires.
Source: Auto‑réalisé; photos provenant de Google Images
Given this surge, one would think that eco-labels have been successful in influencing consumers to make more sustainable food choices because of their role in closing information asymmetry gaps. Simply put, more information = greater ability to make an informed decision. However, evidence from consumer behavior studies suggests that this has not necessarily been the case. Why might that be?
Poor Communication
In general, eco-labels struggle to influence behavior because consumers typically fail to understand the information the label is trying to communicate. More often than not, the specific attribute that the eco-label is trying to represent is a term or value that consumers are unfamiliar with. In comparison to the values found on nutrition labels (such as protein, sugar, or calories), things like water usage, greenhouse gas emissions, and regenerative agriculture are less commonplace. Take, for instance, the company Quorn, which in 2020 became one of the first major brands to introduce carbon footprint labeling on its products. While their intent to highlight reduced greenhouse gas emissions is admirable, the actual carbon footprint numerical value (.16 kg per serving) is difficult to interpret. A consumer with no prior knowledge of carbon footprint measurements can’t possibly draw any value or conclusions from seeing this type of information on a package of frozen food.
An example of a carbon footprint label on a packet of meat-free mince by Quorn.
https://www.quorn.co.uk/company/press/quorn-unveils-carbon-footprint-labelling-of-its-products-and-calls-on-other
Issues of Trust
However, even in situations where the information from an eco-label is easy to digest, issues of trust have been found to limit its impact on consumer behavior. In particular, trust decreases when the credibility of the organization that produced the eco-label is an unknown entity, as is the case with many of the newer eco-labels that have emerged on the market in recent years. It’s not to say that the work that these organizations are doing is shady, but rather that it takes time to establish trust and support among a consumer base.
Take, for instance, the case of organic labeling in the United States. On one hand is the USDA Organic label: a government-backed certification that has been around since 2002. And on the other is the Real Organic Project label: a newer certification established by farmers in 2018. The Real Organic Project label emerged in response to the USDA allowing produce grown hydroponically and livestock grown in confinement to be certified as organic.
USDA Organic label and Real Organic Project label.
Source: USDA; Real Organic Project
By requiring produce to be grown in the soil and livestock to be pasture-raised, the Real Organic Project’s label is not only stricter than the USDA’s label, but also, in some cases, does a better job of representing the core values of organic farming: the prioritization of healthy soils and healthy environments. Despite this, the label has failed to gain traction in the marketplace among consumers due to its lack of familiarity and non-institutional nature. Consciously or not, people gravitate towards labels they know better versus labels they don’t, even when flaws are attached.
Fears of Greenwashing
Like trust, the integrity of an eco-label is equally important amid growing concerns over corporate greenwashing. Given the lack of eco-label regulation, terms like “green”, “regenerative”, and “climate-neutral” can be applied willy-nilly without needing to meet any sort of third-party certification. As a result, it becomes appealing for companies to emphasize the supposed climate friendliness of their products and leverage that for marketing purposes. Look no further than some of the world’s biggest food conglomerates (i.e., Nestle, Unilever, General Mills, Walmart, and PepsiCo), which are touting regenerative practices despite much proof. While what these companies are doing is not technically illegal, it leads to an oversaturation of eco-labels on the market.
In the United States alone, there are currently eight different eco-labels that represent products grown using regenerative agricultural practices. Although diversity in the marketplace is important, having multiple labels that represent the same concept just leads to further confusion and skepticism.
Looking Ahead: Recommendations for Organizations & Consumers
At their core, eco-labels have the potential to be a valuable tool in the pursuit of a more sustainable food system. However, in their current form, a majority of these labels fail to connect with consumers. To address issues concerning poor communication, trust, and greenwashing, organizations involved in eco-label development should consider the following recommendations:
Collaborate with organizations that share similar goals to decrease the number of eco-labels on the market. This would not only lead to less confusion, but could also result in greater trust from consumers as they’d be supporting a label backed by a group of organizations. Issues that could benefit from fewer eco-labels include regenerative agriculture, animal welfare, and carbon footprints.
Redesign labels to better showcase the message they are trying to communicate. The use of cues such as traffic light color-coding and symbols has been shown to help signal to consumers the importance of the label. In particular, a study analyzing different designs of carbon footprint labeling found that consumers responded more favorably to a color-coded label that enabled them to make a quick comparison of products within the same category.
Increase marketing investments for eco-labels to help address concerns about communication and transparency. Hopefully, by doing so, this will help consumers grow their understanding of what they represent and allow them to make more informed decisions.
A graphic of carbon footprint designs used to test consumer preferences.
Source: Consumer Preferences for Different Designs of Carbon Footprint Labelling on Tomatoes in Germany—Does Design Matter? https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/6/1587
Consumers can also play an active role in understanding eco-labels. Here are a few practical tips to help you navigate eco-labels when you shop.
Do your research. This is probably the most important tip, and the most time-consuming. A bit of digging will help you understand what a label actually means and what criteria it’s based on. A quick Google can sometimes be enough, but if that feels like too much work, there are apps such as 3CO or Eco Label Guide that let you scan the label for more information. While they’re not perfect, they give you a quick snapshot of what the label means! However, more often than not, you might want to spend a little extra time exploring the label’s own website to get the most accurate and detailed information possible.
When doing your research, make sure to:
Favor transparency. Look for labels that clearly explain their standards and verification processes, are third-party audited or certified, and provide traceable information. If a label shares nothing about how it’s verified, take its claim with caution.
Compare similar labels. Don’t judge a label by itself, but rather compare it to labels that make similar claims to spot differences (e.g. how are these eight regenerative eco-labels mentioned earlier actually different?). That way, you can judge for yourself which ones better align with your values and what you’re looking for in a product.
We hope to do a deep dive into the many eco-labels on the market–specifically look into their certification processes– for a future issue of Who Wants Seconds? to further support our readers in their decision-making process.
