It is more than 25 years since nutritional content information was introduced to food packaging allowing people to check the calories, sugar, salt and fat content of food and drinks before purchasing them. The standardisation of such labelling was fraught with difficulty but nutritional labelling nonetheless became mandatory in the EU on pre-packaged foods in 2016.
Now, as part of the Farm-to-Fork strategy, the European Commission plan to revise the EU-wide food labelling scheme to include nutritional information as well as some information on the sustainability credentials of food products. The idea is that consumers will better identify the origin of products to help them make more sustainable food choices.
A recent study from the Economic and Social Research Institute found that 67 per cent of Irish consumers are willing to pay premiums for beef products with lower environmental impacts (ie, low carbon or water footprints or low risk to water quality). One hundred per cent of consumers were willing to pay a higher price for sustainably produced chicken.
In mid-February, the Irish food board, An Bord Bia, held a seminar on consumer and carbon with a specialist explaining to food industry representatives how carbon footprint measurements are soon to become mandatory for food products
Researchers, Wellington Osawe, Gianluca Grilli and John Curtis whose paper, Examining Food Preferences in the Face of Environmental Pressures was originally published in the Journal of Agriculture and Food Research, concluded consumer beliefs, especially those related to environmental issues, were a key driver of their food purchasing decisions.
Apple MacBook Pro M4 review: A great option, but only if you actually need the power of the Pro
Why I’m happy not to be an alpha male
‘Homeowners with solar panels could sell extra power to neighbours’: Examining local energy trading
Dave Hannigan: Katie Taylor’s presence lends a modicum of dignity to sporting farrago
They also speculated that if such information was available to consumers, it could significantly affect the agri-food industry, moving environmentally sustainable foods products from niche to mainstream.
In mid-February, the Irish food board, An Bord Bia, held a seminar on consumer and carbon with a specialist explaining to food industry representatives how carbon footprint measurements are soon to become mandatory for food products. It confirmed a new report, Consumer and Carbon (not published at time of writing) finds that 66 per cent of consumers want more transparency on carbon emissions of food.
The food we eat accounts for between a quarter and one-third of global greenhouse gas emissions. And it is estimated that 80 per cent of the greenhouse gas emissions caused by European eating habits come from animal products including meat, eggs and cheese. There is however a growing trend ― particularly among younger consumers ― to replace these high-carbon foods with low-carbon food such as grains, plants and legumes.
Working out a precise and reliable carbon label for food will be complex because the environmental impact of food includes so many elements. The fertilisers and manures used to enhance growing conditions for vegetables or grass for livestock and the methane produced during livestock digestion are obvious ones.
The conversion of land from forestry or wetlands (drained peat soils in Ireland for example) for agriculture is another. And the emissions resulting from processing, packaging, refrigeration and transportation would also have to be factored into a carbon label. But if such a label is to include the impact on biodiversity, the water used to produce certain foods and the pollution of watercourses caused by such food production would also have to be included.
For example, almond milk has a relatively modest carbon footprint yet almonds require a large amount of water for irrigation. Similarly, avocados don’t have much higher carbon emissions than locally grown fruit or vegetables but they have a high water and land use. And, the carbon footprint of fruit like blueberries or tomatoes varies significantly if they are ripened indoors or in fields.
“The most polluting production processes are those related to farm and land use. Transport, often mistakenly cited as one of the most important factors in assessing the environmental impact of a food product, actually causes only a small per cent of emissions,” wrote Gianluca De Feo in a recent piece for the European Data Journalism Network. For example, the carbon footprint of a banana imported to Europe from Ecuador is much lower than cheese producer on a farm close to home.
Some companies have already started to offer carbon footprint calculations to food companies. The UK Food Steps tech company is one. It allows food businesses to measure and reduce their carbon impact by the choice of food they include in their menus.
The London School of Economics also displays a simplified display of the carbon impact of meals in their food outlets. For example, plant/fish-based meals are deemed to be low carbon, pork or chicken medium carbon and beef and lamb high carbon.
Some countries are already exploring what food carbon labels would look like and whether a traffic light system or a rating from A-E on products would work better. In France, the so-called Planet Score is based on the life cycle environmental assessment of food products. This includes original ingredients and their cultivation or rearing methods, manufacturing, packaging and distribution.
In April 2022, Denmark began the first country in Europe to advance the cause of carbon food labelling when its government announced that it would fund the development of a climate label for food
Scoring foods on a scale of A to E, Planet Score also considers the negative impacts of the use of pesticides on human health and biodiversity as well as the food’s impact on animal welfare. A study of Planet Score in France found 81 per cent of consumers would be influenced by it in their purchasing decisions. Some 84 per cent said they would take into account the pesticides indicator, 83 per cent would be influenced by animal welfare, while 85 per cent would be interested in the biodiversity indicator and 73 per cent in the climate indicator.
In April 2022, Denmark began the first country in Europe to advance the cause of carbon food labelling when its government announced that it would fund the development of a climate label for food. Such a state-controlled label aims to enforce transparency while minimising consumer confusion over a multitude of different labels. Carbon emissions had already been included in Danish official dietary guidelines since 2021.
There are also some food brands which have introduced carbon labelling on to some of their products. These include the meat substitute, Quorn and the plant-based milk, Oatly. International food manufacturer Unilever has also floated the idea of carbon-neutral, carbon-friendly aisles similar to vegetarian/vegan produce sections in supermarkets. But the supermarket chain, Tesco introduced its own carbon food labelling in 2011 and subsequently abandoned it as the labels were difficult to understand and didn’t influence customers’ food choices.
Trust in a European-wide carbon food labelling scheme will be key to its effectiveness. And a consistent food labelling system for retailers and manufacturers would need to steer clear of anything that might be seen as greenwashing.
Celia Nyssens, senior policy officer for agriculture and food systems at the European Environmental Bureau has noted her scepticism about how carbon food labelling scheme. “I’m not sure that you can boil down sustainability to just one number or one colour code because it’s not just about how the food is produced ― which is already very complex ― but also how much we eat.”
Food labelling should also be part of a broader policy which tackles other factors (marketing, price and availability) which shape our food choices, Nyssens adds.
So, eating a large amount of low-carbon food could arguably be just as bad for the planet as small amounts of high-carbon food? And, the nutritional composition will also have to be considered. For example, rice, oat and soya drinks generate less than half the emissions of cow’s milk yet plant-based milks have only about one-quarter of the nutritional value of cow’s milk. Many also have added ingredients such as salt and sugar.
Another thing to keep in mind is that there is no point in virtuously buying lots of low-carbon food if more of it ends up in your food waste bin. Just like the fight for clear reliable and useful nutritional information on packaged food, we can expect a lot of debate (and much lobbying) before we see carbon food labelling on the food we buy.
