Green Food Claims

An international survey of self-declared green

claims on selected food products

Green food claims

22

Acknowledgments

This report was produced by Consumers International's Office for Developed and TransitionalEconomies (ODTE), with financial support from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs from the Netherlands.

Consumers International would like to thank its member organisations from the eight countries whotook part in this project – in particular the food officers who conducted research in their own countriesand advised throughout:

Country Organisation

Austria Verein fuer Konsumenteninformation (VKI)Food officer, Birgit Beck

Czech Republic Consumers Defence Association of the Czech Republic Sdruzení obrany spotrebitelu Ceské republiky (SOS) Food officer , Jarmila Hubená

Denmark Forbrugerrådet (The Danish Consumer Council) Senior food adviser, Camilla Udsen

Italy AltroconsumoProgramme officer food and nutrition, Antonella Borrometi

Norway Forbrukerrådet (The Consumer Council of Norway)Senior executive officer, Kolbjørn Liland

Romania Asociatia pentru Protectia Consumatorilor din Romania (APC Romania) Food officer, Alexandru Dodu

Slovenia Zveza potrosnikov Slovenije (ZPS) Slovene Consumers' Association (SCA) Food officer, Marjana Peterman

US Consumers Union, Inc. of the United States (CU)Senior research associate, Urvashi Rangan

˘

3

Acknowledgments

3

Consumers InternationalProject leader: Bjarne Pedersen

Project manager: Irina Danada

Information and Project Co-ordinator: Marco Presutto

Consultant to the project team: Diane McCrea

Design and Production: Steve Paveley

Editor: Lynda Daboh

© Consumers International, July 2004

This report is produced as a contribution from Consumers International work on Sustainable Consumption:

Green Guidance (July 1998)Green Testing (September 1999)Green Labels (November 1999) Green Claims (November 1999)

This publication may be reproduced in whole or in part in any form for educational or non-profitpurposes, with prior permission in writing from the copyright holders. Consumers International kindlyrequests that acknowledgement of the source is made, as well as receive a copy of any publication thatuses this report as a source.

Copies of Green Food Claims can be downloaded from the CI website at: www.consumersinternational.org

ISBN number: 1-902391-48-9

Foreword

4

Ensuring safe food for all is the most criticalelement of the consumer food agenda. Since itsestablishment, Consumers International (CI)has worked with its members to achieve thatgoal, campaigning on a wide range of foodissues including food hygiene, biotechnology,baby foods, pesticides and food irradiation.

In January 2002 Consumers Internationallaunched a Global Food and NutritionProgramme (GFNP) with support from TheMinistry of Foreign Affairs of the Netherlands.This is an integrated programme of activitieswith the objective of ensuring safe, secure andnutritious food for all. It is implementedthrough CI's regional offices in Asia, Africa,Latin America and the Office for Developedand Transition Economies. Run over four yearsthe programme comprises four modules:

• Food Security• Food Safety• Biotechnology• Sustainable Food Production

and Consumption

These modules look closely at internationaldecision making bodies and globalagreements, as well as consumer educationand information. Each includes a mix ofactivities with key components on research,capacity building, public campaigning,consumer education and representation.

Foreword

5

Sustainable food production and consumption

The goal of the Sustainable Food Productionand Consumption (SFPAC) module is toensure that all consumers have access to safeand sustainable food, produced in a sociallyresponsible way, at a fair price.

Sustainable food consumption has beendefined by Barber (2001)

1as 'access and use by

all present and future generations of the foodnecessary for an active, healthy life, throughmeans that are economically, socially and environmentally sustainable. Sustainable foodconsumption thus implies sustainableagricultural production and distribution.'

The Swedish Institute of Food Sciences (2001)2

identified three essential challenges tosustainable food production and consumption:food should be safe, ethical, and sustainable. Itis fundamental to acknowledge thatconsumers have legitimate concerns and rightsto know how their food is produced, alongwith any associated environmental, societaland ethical impacts. These aspects give thisproject its focus and direction.

The main purpose of CI's work on SFPAC istwofold: analyse and promote best sustainableproduction and consumption patterns; and

build the capacity of consumer organisationsto effectively contribute to sustainable foodproduction and consumption policy making,at the national and international level.

CI's member organisations from the Office forDeveloped and Transition Economies regionhave observed a proliferation of green and'eco' claims on different foods in themarketplace. While such claims could play animportant role in helping consumers makeappropriate choices, this can only be achievedif these claims are valid, trustworthy, and donot mislead consumers to make inappropriateor unfounded choices. Therefore, within theGlobal Food and Nutrition Programme,Consumers International, in partnership witheight of its member organisations from Europeand North America, carried out this survey ofgreen food claims. The aim of the research wasto analyze green food claims found on a rangeof typical foods in consumers' everydayshopping basket, and to assess whether theseclaims were valid, independently accredited,and enabled consumers to make moresustainable food choices.

Sustainable food production and consumption

1 Barber, J. 2001. 'The Sustainable Production and Consumption of Food: An NGO Perspective'. U.S: Integrative Strategies Forum.2 Institute of Food Sciences. 2001. A Taste of Food 21: Presentation of a Research Programme Involving Sustainable FoodProduction. Sweden: Institute of Food Sciences.

Green food claims

6

Foreword 4

Abbreviations 8

Glossary 9

1 Executive summary 11

2 Background 132.1 Context 132.2 Consumers' concerns about labelling for

sustainable food production 13

3 Aims, methods and scope 153.1 Overall aims and methods 153.2 Definition of Green Food Claims 153.3 Scope 153.4 Shopping 163.5 Evaluation 16

4 International regulations 19 4.1 International standards and guidelines – Codex

Alimentarius 194.2 International environmental labels and declarations

– International Organization for Standardization 204.3 European Union 204.4 United States 20

5 Enforcement of regulations 225.1 Food law enforcement 225.2 Legal recourse by consumer organisations 23

6 Results 246.1 IMPLIED CLAIMS 25

6.1.1 'Traditional' agricultural production 256.1.2 Misleading brand names 256.1.3 Misleading marketing associations 26

Contents

Contents

7

6.2 EXPLICIT CLAIMS 266.2.1 Production and marketing of eggs 276.2.2 Animal welfare: meat 286.2.2a 'Naturally raised' 286.2.2b 'Free range' 296.2.3 Fishing 296.2.3a Sustainable fishing 306.2.3b Conservation fishing 306.2.3c Farmed fish 316.2.3d Dolphin conservation:

canned tuna fish 316.2.4 Labelling of organically produced foods 326.2.4a Proliferation of organic labels

and logos 326.2.4b Confusion with organic foods 336.2.4c Misleading 'bio' brand names 34

6.3 Additional claims and labelling issues 346.3.1 Definition and terms 346.3.2 Translation of terms and brand names 356.3.3 Private standards 366.3.4 Packaging claims 37

7 Conclusions and recommendations 387.1 General conclusions 387.2 Recommendations 39

8 Country reports 418.1 Austria 418.2 Czech Republic 428.3 Denmark 438.4 Italy 458.5 Norway 468.6 Romania 478.7 Slovenia 498.8 US 51

List of tablesTable 1: Summary of products bought in each country 17Table 2: Number of claims found in different foods

from all countries 24

AnnexAnnex 1 Participating organisations 54Annex 2 ISO International Standard 14021:1999(E) 56

Green food claims

8

Abbreviations

CI Consumers International

CODEX Codex Alimentarius

DG SANCO Directorate General for Health and Consumer Protection of the European Commission

EEA European Economic Area

EFTA European Free Trade Association

EU European Union

FDA Food and Drug Administration (US)

FSA Food Standards Agency (UK)

FTC Federal Trade Commission (US)

ISO International Organization for Standardization

MSC Marine Stewardship Council

ODTE Office for Developed and Transition Economies

SFPAC Sustainable Food Production and Consumption

USDA United States Department of Agriculture

WTO World Trade Organization

Glossary of terms

regulations4

require that to use this term, for atleast half of the lifetime of chickens, there mustbe continuous daytime access to open-air runs.In the US, the USDA requires that for poultrymeat, chickens have the option to go outdoorseach day.

Green Dot: The “Green Dot' or Der GrünePunkt trademark can be used by companiesthat have signed a licence agreement withDuales System Deutschland AG to use thesymbol on packaging. It means that collectionand sorting is financed by producers andretailers, but it does not provide informationabout the environmental characteristics of thepackaging. In many places the appropriatecollection systems are still in the process ofbeing set up. Further information can be foundat: www.pro-e.org. This scheme is structuredin accordance with the principles laid down inthe EU Packaging Directive 94/62 EC andnational laws for EU member states.

Green Food Claim: a claim that couldencourage consumers to select foods, believingthat they were purchasing additional benefitsto support sustainable food production andconsumption, for which they might pay a pricepremium.

Organically Produced Foods: involvesproduction by less intensive use of land, whichmay contribute towards the protection of theenvironment. There are significant restrictionson the use of fertilisers and pesticides that mayhave detrimental effects on the environment or

Animal Welfare: this term/approach seeks toprevent food-producing animals fromunnecessary suffering in life and duringslaughter. It relates to fishing, farming,transport, slaughtering practices and scientificresearch. Voluntary codes of good animalwelfare and humane treatment have beenagreed in some countries.

Bio: within the EU regulations for organicallyproduced foods

3, 'bio' is an alternative term for

'organic' in countries where this has been thetraditional translation for 'organic'.

Eggs: Production methods vary, as do stockingdensities and outdoor access. The followingterms are defined in regulations in Europe

4but

not in the US5.

Barn Eggs: produced from hens kept indoors,without outdoor access.

Battery Cage Eggs: produced from hens keptin small indoor cages – throughout their lives.

Cage Free, Free Walking, Free Roaming:marketing term for both eggs and poultrymeat. In the US, the USDA requires that forpoultry meat, chickens have the option to gooutdoors each day. While the FDA regulatestruthful use of all claims on eggs, it hasprovided no standard for these terms. EUregulations do not permit use of these terms.

Free Range: a marketing term where criteriaare set for both eggs and poultry meat. EU

9

Glossary of terms

3 COUNCIL REGULATION (EEC) No 2092/91 of 24 June 1991 on organic production of agricultural products (OJ L198,22.7.1991,p.1).4 COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 2295/2003, detailed rules for implementing Council Regulation (EEC)No 1907/90 oncertain marketing standards for eggs (OJ L 340,24.12.2003,p.16).5 In the US, the FDA only pursues investigations into fraudulent claims on shell egg labels, after the product has gone to market.Since the FDA provides no definitions for these terms, there is no specific standard to uphold.

result in the presence of residues inagricultural produce. In the EU

3and the US

6

regulations have been introduced to controlthe standards for production, accreditation,overseeing of certification and labelling oforganically produced foods, and certificationby third party verification and inspectionsystems.

Recyclable: ISO 14021 Article 7.77

states thatthis environmental claim shall be accompaniedby information on where appropriate recyclingfacilities are to be found, or, it should bequalified to convey the limited availability ofcollection facilities. General qualifications suchas 'recyclable where facilities exist' are deemedinadequate.

Green food claims

10

6 Organic Food Production Act 1990 (OFPA), OFPA Amended - 7 U.S.C. 6501, National Organic Program – 7 CFR Part 205. 7 ISO 14021:1999(E) Environmental labels and declarations – Self-declared environmental claims (Type II environmental labelling),ISO Geneva.

Executive summary

11

Consumers are becoming increasinglyconcerned about how the food that theyconsume is produced. These concerns oftenrelate to the sustainability of the food andare legitimate consumer concerns acrossthe world.

Consumer rights stipulate that consumershave the right to choice, to information and toa sound and healthy environment. One wayfor consumers to exercise their rights andbeliefs is by choosing to buy food productsthat are produced in a more sustainable way.To do this, reliable and truthful information iscritical for the consumer to be able make aninformed and sustainable choice.

In this report Consumers International andeight member organisations investigate ifconsumers actually can trust the informationdisplayed on everyday food labels/packaging.

In this survey food products based on a typical'food basket' were purchased across eightcountries. They were assessed against relevantnational and international regulations. Fromthis we were able to conclude that internation-ally agreed standards have not achieved theirgoals to protect consumers from misleadinggreen claims.

Disappointingly we found a large number ofdifferent logos and claims that were vague,meaningless, non-transparent, lackedstandards and/or third party verification.Besides being intrinsically misleading, such aproliferation of claims undermines consumertrust and confidence in valid claims therebystifling progress towards real sustainable foodproduction and consumption.

The green food claims that we found, for themost part, did not help those consumers whowanted to purchase food products produced ina sustainable way. Indeed in some cases itcomplicated choice, and thus preventedchanges in market behaviour that couldpositively impact on bringing aboutsustainable development.

To improve this situation and enableconsumers to exercise their rights political willand guidance are of crucial importance. Basedon our research we recommend the followingas a starting point:

Labels and claims on food should be clearand unambiguous – where they are not,enforcement action should be undertaken toensure that they are.

Misleading and unsubstantiated imagesshould not be used to convey inappropriatemessages, particularly about productionmethods. Better enforcement of current foodlabelling regulations is required to ensurecompliance with national and internationalstandards and regulations.

Whether private or public, all food standardsfor food labels and claims should bedeveloped with stakeholder involvement andrespond to the public interest. In addition,standards should be publicly available, openand accessible so that consumers can be sureof their validity.

Where explicit claims and statements arecommunicated to consumers, these should bevalidated by third party verification to ensurevalidity and consumer confidence.

1 Executive summary

Green food claims

12

Claims that state or imply that 'legallyrequired standards' are being met areirrelevant for consumers, and should beprohibited.

There is a need for the development andadoption of a mandatory, harmonisedworldwide standard for catching tuna thatdoes not harm dolphins.

Consideration should be given to adoptingharmonised international organic logos andlabels. In addition there should be appropriateeducation and information campaigns toexplain the official certification procedures andorganic labels and logos. Enforcement actionshould be taken to ensure that organicallyproduced foods are not undermined byillegally named and labelled products.Research should be conducted with consumersto find a solution to the problem of theproliferation of organic labels and logos. Thereis a need to define one recognisable officialorganic logo for international use, alongsidenational official logos.

Brand names should not be derived fromemotive words and images such as natural,quality, pure, fresh and bio. This should beprohibited by appropriate legislation andstandards.

The nature of any association, endorsement, orlink, with for example, an environmental orfarming organisation, be it for fundraising,awareness raising or endorsement of aparticular quality or production standard,should be stated explicitly and clearlyalongside the logo or claim.

Definitions and accurate explanations of termsfor sustainable food production andconsumption are needed, particularly forconsumer education and food labelling. Termssuch as natural, eco, fresh, bio and pure whilesometimes being defined at the national levelaccording to the cultural context, also need tobe re-examined at the international level.

Guidelines for interpreting misleading foodclaims, words and terms should includesustainability issues. Existing guidelines suchas those produced in Denmark should bereplicated and adapted to the national needs ofindividual countries.

Further research is needed to investigate theextent of language and translation problemsof food claims, to agree definitions of terms,and to ensure that consumers are not beingmisled. Given the differences in culturalinterpretation, guidance should be issued atthe national level.

Background

13

2 Background

2.1 Context

This report follows on from work carried outby Consumers International and its memberorganisations on promoting sustainableconsumption. In 1996 CI started a majorproject 'to promote sustainable consumptionby improving the ability of consumersorganisations to provide environmentalinformation to consumers'. Several reports

8

have subsequently been published: the mostrecent on Green Claims (1999).

To progress CI's agenda further the firstSustainable Food Production andConsumption (SFPAC) workshop

9of CI's

Office for Developed and TransitionEconomies (ODTE) was held in Madrid(November 2002). Given the importance offood labelling and its contribution tocommunicating the 'added value' ofsustainable food production, CI memberorganisations decided to research Green FoodClaims. This is important for consumers sincethey can be misled over the green attributes offoods by vague, non-specific, unsubstantiatedor misleading claims.

This project was subsequently planned andco-ordinated by CI's ODTE team with researchcarried out by eight member organisations.The countries that participated were Austria,The Czech Republic, Denmark, Italy, Norway,Romania, Slovenia, and the USA.

Two project meetings were held. The first wasin Copenhagen, Denmark (September 2003) todecide the scope and methodology for thework. The second was held in New York, US(February 2004) to discuss the results andconclusions.

2.2 Consumers' concerns about labelling for sustainable food production

CI's members have worked extensively onclaims in food labelling. Recently theenvironmental and ethical attributes of foodproducts have become increasingly importantto consumers. Therefore CI memberorganisations have carried out investigationsfor their magazines and done policy work ongreen food claims.

Consumers Union of the United States (CU),in response to the rising number of foodclaims and the lack of information to explainthem, developed a major project on eco-labelsto investigate, evaluate, rate and demystifyover 100 labelling schemes. Consumers cannow check CU's assessments of these labelsonline

10.

In Austria, VKI published articles on qualityand organic labels in its magazine'Konsument' (May and June 2004). A hugearray of organic certification schemes andquality marks was found, so much that VKIconcluded Austrian consumers werebecoming confused rather than informed bythe proliferation of such labels. Quality labelswere difficult for consumers to interpret withconfidence: some had third party verificationwhereas others didn't, some focussed onhigher quality, origin and/or animal welfare.Others had little, if any, direct meaning forconsumers; for example one gave details ofthe laboratory used for food analysis, whichwas meaningless for consumers.

The Romanian Consumers' Association APCcarried a survey on food labelling in 2000-

8 Other reports in the CI series: Green Guidance, July 1998; Green Testing, Sept. 1999; Green labels, 1999; Green claims, 1999. 9 Sustainable Food Production and Consumption workshop organised by CI's Office for Developed and Transition Economies,Madrid Spain, 25th – 26th November 2002. 10 CU's Ecolabels website can be found at www.ecolabels.org

Green food claims

14

200111. This identified that only 35% of the foods

on sale met the national legal requirements. Theother 65% of foods were lacking basic foodinformation, such as the correct ingredient list,name of importer, expiry dates, and other typesof incorrect food claims.

In the Nordic countries, surveys of consumers'attitudes to food labelling

12have highlighted

concerns about food production on ethicalissues, environmental concerns and animalwelfare.

In Norway, a consumer panel was establishedin 2002 by the Ministry of Agriculture

13. This

panel comprises 63 regular people from 7 different areas in Norway, who neither havevested interests nor expertise in food issues.The aim of this three-year project is to increaseknowledge of consumers' views and attitudesabout food in order to provide input to thepublic authorities for development of foodpolicies. Hitherto the main findings show thatconsumers are increasingly demanding to“know what they are eating”, particularly withregard to better information about:

• the origin (country, district, producer) onproducts such as meat and locally producedfoods

• animal welfare and 'ethical' labelling • slaughter, packaging, and freezing dates• labelling of the ingredients list in

percent (%)• prepacked meat – what animals, sex, age,

breed, part of the animal, etc.

The Consumer Council in Norway has alsohighlighted concerns about food production inthe past. An investigation carried out at thebeginning of January 2003, revealed thatconsumers were being fooled and mislead byincorrect food labels on a whole range of issues,including origin labelling and health claims.

Since 2001 the Slovene Consumers' Associationhas carried out surveys of consumersunderstanding of food labels alongside surveysof the accuracy of food labelling. In 2001 72%of the foods investigated did not conform tolegislative requirements. At that timeconsumers judged 37% of the samples to bemisleading and hard to understand. In 2003there was an improvement with a reduction to47% of the samples not conforming to thelegislative requirements.

In Italy there is growing interest amongconsumers about sustainability. In response tothis trend, Altroconsumo, the Italianconsumers' association has recently startedincluding this aspect in its comparative tests,whenever possible. For example, in February2004, Altroconsumo published a report aboutbananas with 'fair trade' and other types ofsustainable and/or 'fair' trade type labels andlogos, comparing the standards and guaranteesbehind the different schemes. In September1998 Altroconsumo published an article aboutgreen claims on non-food products, explainingthe different symbols (such as the EU eco-label). Self-declarations found on the productswere tested to find out if the claims were true.

According to the Consumer DefenceAssociation, consumers in the Czech Republicare increasingly exposed to a range ofdifferent food labels and are becomingconfused by them. They are unsure which, ifany, of these labels can be trusted.

11 APC Romania, 2001, Food Labelling Survey12 TemaNord 2001:573 Food Labelling: Nordic Consumers' Proposals for Improvements. A pan-Nordic Survey of consumerbehaviour and attitudes towards food labelling, Nordic Council of Ministers, Copenhagen 2001. 13 More details about the Food Policy Consumer Panels available from the Consumer Council in Norway http://forbrukerportal-en.no

Background

15

'high quality of nature' etc. These are vague,non-specific, claims.

• Explicit claims – text, logo or pictures,including for example, 'environmentfriendly', 'sustainable production', 'better forthe environment' etc. These are specific,distinct claims.

The guiding principle behind this project wasISO standard 14021:1999(E)

7and its

requirement for the reliability of self-declaredenvironmental claims based on clear,transparent, scientifically sound verification toassure the validity of a claim.

LimitationsWe acknowledge that there are many foodclaims promoted in various ways. Thefollowing were excluded:

• Healthy eating, nutrition and/or a healthylifestyle claims.

• Terms such as fresh, natural, pure – exceptwhen they are confused about greencredentials or production methods.

• Certified organically produced foods –except where the organic status of a foodproduct was in question. For example,where the food gave the impression that itwas 'organic' without meeting the legalrequirements. Misleading or 'copy-cat'organic products were included.

• Other credible third-party certified greenclaims (e.g. Biodynamic, Food Alliance, FairTrade, and others) – except where the statusof a food product was in question.

• Genetically modified foods and labels forGM ingredients.

3.1 Overall aims and methods

The overall aim of this project was toinvestigate claims that appeared to misleadabout a food's 'green credentials' throughself-declared green claims on selected foodproducts. We assessed what image theycommunicate, the standards andverification behind them, and to what extentself-declared, voluntary green food claimswere valid and enabled consumers to makemeaningful choices to support sustainablefood production systems.

3.2 Definition of green food claims

When considering the definition of green foodclaims we built on CI's previous work andreports

8. At the first project meeting the

following definition of a 'misleading greenclaim' was agreed:

A misleading green claim is a vague ormeaningless claim that could encourageconsumers to select foods, believing that theywere purchasing additional benefits, to supportsustainable food production and consumption,for which they might pay a price premium.

3.3 Scope

The research underpinning this report waslimited to potentially misleading green claimsand images found on food labels at the pointof sale.

Various types of green food claims wereidentified. The examples cited are illustrative,but not exhaustive:

• Implied claims – text, logo or pictures,including for example, 'traditional farming',

3 Aims, methods and scope

Green food claims

16

• Green claims on product literature, TVadvertisements, technical bulletins,publicity, telemarketing, the Internet, andelectronic media.

3.4 Shopping

To represent the different food choices andeating patterns across countries we used a listof basic foods, typical of a family's weeklyshopping basket: We also allowed for any foodof particular national interest:

• Bread all or any pre-packaged type

• Breakfast cereals adult, healthy types e.g. muesli

• Coffee all or any type• Eggs all or any type• Fish fresh, canned, frozen,

any type• Fruit juice 100% fruit juice, not soft

drinks, fresh or long-life

• Meat fresh meat or chicken, pre-packaged

• Potatoes, flour, all or any pre-packaged pasta or rice type

• Vegetables, fruit all or any pre-packaged• Yoghurt bio/natural/

traditional/green/plain • National choice any food of particular

national interest or concern e.g. baby food.

Shopping took place in the participatingcountries during the autumn and winter of2003-4. Typical shops where consumers didtheir regular food shopping were selected ineach country. These included hypermarkets,supermarkets, independent shops, farmersmarkets and health food stores.

Consumers' food choices differ betweencountries. The foods chosen from each of thecategories in the generic shopping list alsodiffered between countries. Therefore a directcomparison between food products is notalways possible. Table 1 (see opposite) gives asummary of the foods bought in each countryand should not be used for direct comparisonsbetween countries.

3.5 Evaluation

The foods bought were scrutinised and thegreen claims evaluated against the relevantnational and international regulations.

Data was collected and compared acrosscountries to check the consistency ofinterpretation and assessment, taking intoaccount cultural and national differences ofinterpretation.

At the second project meeting in New York(February 2004) the food samples, greenclaims and their assessment were reviewed.Crosscutting issues were identified.

Aims, methods and scope

17

Food Product CountriesCategory Pre-packed Multigrain NOBread Crisp bread NO

Rye bread NO, IT, DK, AU,

ROWheat bread SL, AUFarm bread AUWhite bread USCracked bread CRWholemeal bread AU

Breakfast Cornflakes NO, CR,Cereals RO

Cereal mix RO, NO, CR

Muesli SL, DK, AU, CR

Oat flakes SL, CRPopped spelt DKWheat sprouts CRFlaked rice RO

Coffee Ground coffee NO, IT, DK, CR, AU, RO

Barley malt AU, CREggs Free range eggs RO, AU,

NO, SL, US

Scratch eggs DKDeep litter eggs IT, AUOrganic fresh eggs DK

Fresh eggs RO, IT,(no specification) DK

Cage free, free USrunning, free walking

Food Product CountriesCategory Fish Trout NO

Crab sticks NODentex gibbosus fillets ITCanned Tuna NO, IT,

SL, CR, US, RO

Pollock AU(frozen fish)Frozen Cod AU(fillets and fishfingers) Sardines ROHake fillets ITSalmon (fresh, DK, AUfrozen and smoked) Mussels (frozen) AUWhitefish fillet AU(frozen) NO

Fruit Juice Organic Apple JuiceSoya NOGuava and Nectar NOPineapple SLBeet SLOrange DK, US,

ROOrange and Nectar RONectar CRSyrup CRApple AU

Meat Smoked cured ham NOChicken (fresh, IT, RO, grilled chicken US, SLwings, split breasts)Pork (chops and DK, AUescallope)

Table 1: Summary of products bought in each country

Country CodesAustria : AU Norway: NO Czech Republic: CR Romania: RODenmark: DK Slovenia: SLItaly: IT United States of America: US

Green food claims

18

Food Product CountriesCategory Potatoes/flour Macaroni (semolina,/pasta/rice wheat) RO, IT

Noodles NOSoya flour SLCannelloni NOSpaghetti NOOrganic fusilli NORice noodles NORice NO, IT,

CRWhole wheat for polenta ITWhite wheat flour SLGrain kernels SLPotatoes (fresh DK, AU,and processed) CRCrisps CRMaize flour CR

Vegetables/Fruit US and IT no

products bought

Tomatoes (sun dried, fresh, DK, NO, canned) AU, SLPacked green salad NOBeans sprout NOSweet corn NO, ROChick peas NOGreen lentils NOVegetables with mix of dried cereals CRGreen beans (fresh and cooked/canned) RO, CR Canned peppers filled with minced meat CRPickles ROBlackberries NOStrawberries NOGrapes AUApples AUCarrots AUCress AUClementines AUGrated coconut CR

Food Product CountriesCategory Yoghurt IT no

products bought

Junket DKPlain yoghurt SL, DK,

CR, AU,RO

Fruit yoghurt US, AUYoghurt with hazelnuts AUPro biotic yoghurt CRDrinking yoghurt RO

National Baby food CR, NO,Choice SL

Blueberry jam IT, DKExtra virgin oil ITMilk chocolate ITOrganic apple juice NO Cranberry fruit spread DKOrganic blueberry/ elderberry spread DKDried soya granulated meat CRInstant soya drink CRMilk (Fresh, UHT, ESL) AURice with Milk CRFermented Soya Drink CRWafers CRTelemea Cheese RODried Lotus root(spice) CRSoya meat CRSoya cheese CR

Aims, methods and scope

19

agreed by Codex Alimentarius (theinternational food standards setting body ofthe Food and Agriculture Organisations andthe World Health Organization) as long ago as1979. These give guidance for claims

14and

standards15

for the labelling of prepackagedfoods though they do not specifically regulategreen food claims.

Codex standards and guidelines have beenadopted and used by many countries whendeveloping their national food regulations. Inaddition, while not mandatory, Codex is usedas a reference by the World TradeOrganization (WTO) should there be recourseto its dispute resolution procedure.

Codex defines claims as any suggestion orimplication that a food has particular characteristics relating to its origin, nutritionalproperties, nature, production, processing,composition or any other quality. Prohibitedclaims include those that cannot besubstantiated, or could give rise to doubt, orarouse or exploit fear in consumers.Misleading claims include those withincomplete comparatives and superlatives,and those such as wholesome, healthy andsound.

Codex General Guidelines on Claims14

(Article1.2) requires that:

‘...no food should be described or presented in amanner that is false, misleading or deceptive or islikely to create an erroneous impression regardingits character in any respect'

Article 1.3 requires that:

The basic principle of food labellingregulations requires that consumers shouldnot be misled about the nature, quality ortype of foods they purchase. This isparticularly important when a food isprepacked and it is not possible forconsumers to judge for themselves what theproduct looks or tastes like, how, where, orwhen it was produced.

Increasingly how food is produced is ofconcern to consumers since they are moreaware of the direct links to food safety, ethicaland sustainability issues. These consumerconcerns are beginning to be acknowledged inthe development of food standards andregulations as legitimate factors, both at thenational and international levels.

Many international guidelines and standardshave been formulated, national and regionalregulations implemented, all with the aim ofpreventing consumers from being misled andhonest traders being disadvantaged by unfair trade. Unscrupulous traders can exploit consumers, and undermine theircompetitors by false or misleading labellingclaims, be these intentional or not. Hence theneed for effective national and internationalregulations on truthful and non misleadingfood labelling and for their vigorousenforcement.

4.1 International food standards and guidelines – Codex Alimentarius (Codex)

International standards and guidelines on foodclaims, labelling, and packaging were first

4 International regulations

14 Codex Document CAC/GL 1 – 1979 (Rev. 1- 1991), published in the Codex Alimentarius Food Labelling Compete Texts, FAOand WHO, Rome, revised in 2001. Available from www.codexalimentarius.net15 Codex Document Stan 1 –1985 (Rev 1 – 1991) published in the Codex Alimentarius Food Labelling Compete Texts, FAO andWHO, Rome, revised in 2001. Available from www.codexalimentarius.net

Green food claims

20

'The person marketing the food should be able tojustify the claims made'

Codex Standards for the Labelling ofPrepackaged Foods

15states (Article 3.2) that:

‘...prepackaged food shall not be described orpresented on any label or in any labelling by words,pictorial or other devices which refer to or aresuggestive either directly or indirectly, of any otherproduct with which such food might be confused, orin such a manner as to lead the purchaser orconsumer to suppose that the food is connectedwith such other product'

4.2 International environmental labels and declarations – International Organization for Standardization (ISO)Given the proliferation of environmentalclaims, ISO has developed a series ofinternational standards for environmentallabels and declarations. These are advisory butare nevertheless important as reference points.They can be used as the basis for nationallegislation and for industry codes of practice.

ISO 14020:200016

specifies the generalprinciples for the use of environmental labelsand declarations. ISO's first publishedenvironmental labelling standards ISO14021:1999(E)

17focused on setting out the

requirements, terms and definitions for self-declared environmental claims and how theseshould be verified by providing accurateinformation.

ISO 14021:1999(E)17

also covers the use ofsymbols, such as the Mobius loop for therecyclable or recycled content of packaging.

The procedures to substantiate claims areprescribed in ISO 14021:1999(E)

17Article 5.

This requires that verification of anenvironmental claim should be based on open,publicly available information (see Annex 2).

4.3 European Union

European Union regulations apply to all EUmember states. Those acceding to membershipand those countries applying for membershipare either adapting or implementing EUregulations into national legislation. In theory,this should result in a common market acrossEurope, where consumers and traders areequally protected within the community.

In Europe, EU Council Directive 2000/13/EEC18

regulates the labelling, presentation andadvertising of foodstuffs for sale to theindividual consumer. While all claims on foodlabels must be true and not mislead consumers,currently there is no specific legal requirementto demonstrate or prove truthfulness, nor toprovide evidence to support any such claim.

Specific EU regulations for variouscommodities set out the labelling requirementsrelating to particular methods of productionand/or marketing, for example, organicallyproduced foods

3and eggs

19.

Norway is a European Economic Association(EEA) member and therefore has toincorporate most of the EU regulations.However, being outside the EU, Norway alsohas the opportunity to make its own legislativedecisions. This is particularly the case wherenational preferences are different from the EU,necessitating a different legislative approach.

4.4 United States

In the US, foods are generally regulated by theUS Department of Agriculture (USDA) and theFood and Drug Administration (FDA), eachtaking specific responsibility for differentcommodity groups. For example, the USDAregulates meat production and labelling,including chicken, while the FDA isresponsible for other foods such as eggs,crackers and juices.

16 ISO 14020:2000 Environmental labels and declarations – General Principles, Second Edition, 2000-09-15, ISO Geneva.17 ISO 14021:1999(E) Environmental labels and declarations – Self-declared environmental claims (Type II environmental labelling)ISO Geneva.18 EU Council Directive 2000/13/EEC (OJ No. L109 6.5.2000).19 COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 2295 / 2003, introducing detailed rules for implementing Council Regulation (EEC)No1907/90 on certain marketing standards for eggs (OJ L 340,24.12.2003).

International regulations

21

There is no pre-market approval process forFDA regulated products while the USDArequires producers to submit an affidavitregarding the use of certain labels on meatthough there is no required on-site inspectionby USDA. Other claims for specific productionmethods or attributes such as 'free range','grass fed', 'no hormones used' and 'fed inNebraska' are currently being defined by theUSDA, and will require the submission of anaffidavit in order to use the claim.

Some claims such as environmentallypreferable, degradable, ozone friendly andrecycled, fall under the guidance of theFederal Trade Commission (FTC) and theEnvironmental Protection Agency (EPA).These claims are allowed provided thatadditional specific qualifying information isprovided. These claims are not verified and donot require pre-market approval, but aresubject to enforcement.

Green food claims

22

5.1 Food law enforcement

For effective consumer protection allregulations need to be vigorously enforced.

Within the EU, where an offence is suspected,it is the responsibility of the nationalcompetence authority (or its delegated officers)to take legal proceedings against the offendersand it is for the national courts to decide if aninfringement has occurred. In the US, where anoffence is suspected, depending on the type ofproduct or claim being made, the relevantagency (FDA, USDA, EPA or FTC) has theability to enforce truthful labelling and inaddition, any government standards that havebeen established.

In Norway, enforcement of food regulations iscarried out by Mattilsynet (The Norwegian FoodSafety Authority) which can take action toinvestigate and prohibit products that are illegalor misleading in any way. Forbrukerrådet (TheNorwegian Consumer Council) complained tothe Norwegian Food Safety Authority in March2004 about two misleading organic claims onlabels. In April 2004 'Debio'

20(the official control

authority for organic production in Norway)took action and demanded that the twooffending products were removed from storesall over the country. The producer wasinstructed to remove all references regardingorganic/ biological production from themarketing material of Sol & Vind frokostbland-ing (Sun & Wind breakfast cereals). In addition,Debio instructed the producer of 'Økologiskesoyabiter' (Organic Soya granules) to ensure thecorrect labelling and official organic certification.These actions directly resulted from this survey.

In Denmark, the control of food labelling iscarried out by the national food authorities andthe regional veterinary and food control

5 Enforcement of regulations

centres under The Danish Veterinary andFood Administration. The food authoritieshave campaigned on misleading labelling offood in 1997-98 and 2001. Several consumerorganisations have kept up this emphasis byreporting misleading labelling andadvertisements. The result is that misleadingfood labelling is now much less of a problembut vigilance by consumer organisations hasbeen needed to re-emphasis the campaigns setup by the national authorities. In generalissues like food safety are given a higherpriority by the authorities.

In Romania, the food issues are supervised byseveral institutions, each acting in its own field,being co-ordinated by the National Veterinaryand Food Safety Agency (AVSA). In addition,the Ministry of Health, the Ministry ofAgriculture, Forests and Rural Development, aswell as the National Authority on Consumers'Protection (ANPC) all have responsibilities infood inspection. While AVSA acts in the field ofanimal products, ANPC regulates labelling andmisleading claims. The Romanian NationalAuthority on Consumers' Protection respondedpromptly to the Romanian Association forConsumers' Protection's (APC) survey results(2001) showing poor prior enforcement of foodlabelling regulations. In addition, theRomanian National Agency on OrganicFoodstuffs has responded to complaints fromAPC on false organic products that couldmislead consumers.

In Slovenia emphasis has been on putting thelegal instruments in place. Consequentlyenforcement of food labelling issues has notbeen prioritized. Misleading advertising andfood labelling are enforced by the AdvertisingAssociation and by the Market Inspectorate.These agencies rarely act upon infringementssince their definition is vague, and penalties

20 Debio 'Rules for labelling and use of labels'.

Enforcement of regulations

23

are negligible. Consumer organisations areable to report complaints to these bodies.

In the Czech Republic there are two majorfood authorities – the State VeterinaryAdministration of the Czech Republic, whichfocuses on foodstuffs of animal origin; and theCzech Agriculture and Food InspectionAuthority, which focuses on all otherfoodstuffs. KEZ o.p.s is the inspection andcontrol body for organic farming and use ofthe claim 'bio'. SOS (Consumers DefenceAssociation of the Czech Republic)continuously approaches all these authoritiesnotifying them of labelling problems. In somebut not all cases they take immediate action.The Czech authorities responsible for foodprotection have in the past sometimes usedthe media to warn consumers aboutsignificant problems that have been foundwith food labelling.

To pursue legal proceeding against suspectedoffenders is expensive, time consuming and itwould seem rarely a priority for competentauthorities. Our research suggests that foodlabelling regulations are poorly enforced, bethey EU, US or national regulations. Few casesever progress to court, yet apparent offencescan cheat consumers and honest traders alike.

5.2 Legal recourse by consumer organisations

In some countries it is possible for consumerorganisations to take companies to court asaggrieved parties.

In Austria, VKI (the Consumers' Association)has carried out a successful project to thiseffect

21. It evaluated how existing legal

instruments protected consumers frommisleading advertising, particularlyconcerning nutritional value, health and theethical and ecological value of a product orservice. For example, there were severalcomplaints about implicit green claimsincluding deep litter or cage eggs withpictures of green grass, blue sky, mountains,and traditional farmhouses. Successful caseshave resulted following VKI's recourse to thecourts with the outcome being that offendinglabels have been prohibited and changed.

In the US consumer and environmental non-profit organisations have sued companies foregregious label use. Consumers' Union doesnot use legal action as a typical means ofaddressing regulatory or industryshortcoming since it is a very costly path. Inthe US, the Attorney General's network cansue on behalf on consumers.

The Norwegian Consumer Council can act asan aggrieved party and take legal actionagainst a company or organisation.Complaints are mainly taken directly to thenational authorities so that they can take legalaction.

The Danish consumer ombudsman systemmade general guidelines regarding greenclaims in 1993-1994. However this institutiondoes not deal with food since existing foodlaw should deal with these matters. InDenmark if a consumer (or a consumerorganisation) finds a misleading foodlabelling, it should be reported to the regionalveterinary and food control centres (theauthority in charge of food control) under TheDanish Veterinary and Food Administration.If the regional control centre rejects thecomplaint, it can be appealed to the centralauthority, the Danish Veterinary and FoodAdministration. Such an appeal can only bemade by the Danish Consumer Council and afew other consumer organisations.

In Romania and the Czech Republic, it ispossible for consumer organisations to takelegal cases to court. In other countries such asSlovenia, consumer organisations can not takeany legal action as an aggrieved party.

The evidence shows that the option forconsumer organisations to act as aggrievedparties has not been used yet in practice byconsumer organisations other than in Austria,but is an important principle and right forconsumer organisations. We recommend thatthe right for consumer organisations to act asaggrieved party should be encouraged andfacilitated for consumer organisations in othercountries.

21 VKI's project (funded by DG SANCO of the EU) details available from: www.konsument.at

Green food claims

The overall aim of this project was toinvestigate claims that appeared to misleadabout a food's 'green credentials' throughself-declared environmental claims. Couldconsumers have confidence in these greenclaims and the products being promoted?Were these foods really making acontribution towards sustainable foodproduction and consumption?

The total number of claims from differentfoods found in all countries is given in Table 2.It was not possible to include all the examplesidentified in this report. Examples in the textare illustrative.

Details of national results can be obtainedfrom the participating consumer organisationsand their publications. See Annex 1 for details.

24

6 Results

Table 2: Total number of claims found on different foods from all countries

Food category Total number of claims found Food product where highest number of claims found

Pre-packaged Bread 17 claims found on 8 different types Rye Bread (7)

Breakfast Cereals 22 claims found on 7 different types Muesli (9)

Coffee 21 claims found on 3 different types Ground Coffee (17)

Eggs 17 claims found on 6 different types Free Range Eggs (5)

Fish 45 claims found on 12 different types Tuna – canned (25)

Fruit Juice 29 claims found on 10 different types Orange (14)

Meat 17 claims found on 3 different types Chicken – fresh and grilled (7)

Pork chops and escallopes (9)

Potatoes/Flour/ 31 claims found on 15 different types Macaroni, semolina, wheat (7)

Pasta/Rice Potatoes – fresh and processed (7)

Vegetables/Fruit 34 claims found on 21 different types Tomatoes – sun-dried, fresh

and canned (10)

Yoghurt 19 claims found on 6 different types Plain Yoghurt (10)

National Choice 35 claims found on 15 different types Milk – fresh, UHT and ESL (10)

Results

6.1 IMPLIED CLAIMS

Implied green claims, by our definition, werethose that gave the impression of moretraditional, old-fashioned farming methods thatwere generally less intensive, more sustainableand appeared to be better for the environment.

Any claim, logo or image implying 'traditionalfarming', 'natural', or any endorsement by anenvironmental organisation without specificsubstantiation to verify the claim, wasclassified as an implied green claim.

Many of the examples we found gave anoverall image for the food and how it wasproduced, which implies better productionconditions than the ones in reality.

Implied claims were found in every country, ona wide range of foods, particularly on breakfastcereals and bread. These claims were for themost part vague, meaningless and unsubstanti-ated and often, in our opinion, gave consumersthe wrong impression about the product and itscontribution to sustainable food production. Assuch these claims would infringe ISO14021:1999(E)

17and the specific requirements, as

defined by Article 5.7 (see Annex 2).

6.1.1 'Traditional' agricultural production: images and claims

Images of traditional farming methodsfeatured prominently on foods bought by ourshoppers. In many cases it was most likely thatintensive farming and mechanised foodproduction methods had been used – there isnothing per se wrong with this. However,there is a case to answer if consumers werebeing misled about the true nature of the food,its production method, and its contribution tosustainable agricultural methods.

Conclusions

Many products displayed images of 'days ofold' – a romantic time when things weresupposedly better, produced more akin tonature, in a time honoured and traditionalmanner.

Some artisan products could legitimately makea claim for traditional food production

25

methods. However, mass-market foods sold atdiscount stores, could hardly be producedfrom such apparently traditional methods.

6.1.2 Misleading brand names

Brand names convey an all-important 'image'for a product. To be successful a productshould live up the expectations it creates.Brand names are often registered trademarksand are usually well known. But they couldalso give a misleading impression since ourshoppers were not convinced by some of theexamples found.

EXAMPLES

• 'Natura' brand muesli had a picture of afarmer in the field, alongside the claim thatthis product includes wheat grains, whichhave for thousands of years received theirstrength from the 'earth'. The secondingredient listed was sugar; the thirdhydrogenated fat; soya protein, wheat starchand lecithin had also been added. This is notlikely to be what many consumers wouldregard as a 'natural' muesli, but more like ahighly processed cereal.

• 'Le Naturelle' brand of eggs clearly invoked anatural image with a declaration for 'highquality of nature' – but what does thismean, and would it be any different fromother eggs? The brand name and the self-declared claim both give the impressionthat these eggs are produced by more'natural' production methods. But there isno such indication or validation to thiseffect, nor are there any standards for'natural' eggs.

• 'Moka Iz Starega Mlina' (Flour from the OldMill) This brand name and its image givesthe impression of a traditional product froman old mill in the countryside; yet there isno old mill near the factory in the city ofCelje where this product is made.

Conclusions

The above examples illustrate the problem ofproducts apparently not being quite whattheir brand names appear to suggest, in theopinion of our shoppers.

Green food claims

26

company, nor is there any information aboutany special qualities of this particular brandto qualify for the WWF endorsement. Thiscould be misleading, giving the impressionthat 'Panda bread' was produced in a moreenvironmentally benign manner. It seemsthat in fact there is nothing particularlysustainable or different about the way inwhich this bread was produced. Byassociation with WWF the brand appears togive a misleading impression of itsenvironmental and sustainable credentials.

• Chicken endorsed by 'Legambiente' theItalian environmental organisation's logoclaiming 'fed on vegetables, without animalfats and proteins'. While the 'Legambiente'association is well known for environmentalprotection, the production standards forthese eggs and any additional benefits, overand above the legal requirements, are notclear since there was no detail orverification.

Conclusions

Where foods are associated with, or endorsedby, a well-known environmental organisation,consumers could be mistaken and/or thinkthat higher environmental standards, betterthan for other similar products, have beenused.

Products associated with credibleenvironmental organisations could indeedhave been produced to better standards, andbe independently verified as such. However, itwas not clear from these examples whetherhigher standards had indeed been used.

Confusion about endorsements andassociations must be avoided for fear ofconfusing and/or misleading consumers andbringing the product and/or the organisationinto disrepute.

6.2 EXPLICIT CLAIMS

Use of explicit terms such as 'environmentallyfriendly', 'sustainable production methods' and'better for the environment' we judged to meanthat, in some way, the product had been

22 The Co-operative Group, UK May 2004 'Shopping with attitude'

Brand names might be well known and havebeen used for many years, however, in somecases they might be no more than marketingploys.

Misleading brand names could do more harmthan good to the image of a brand.Consumers, in our opinion, and according to aCo-op report

22are likely to be disillusioned

and 'put off' by a product where thecomposition or quality does not live up to theexpectations created by the brand name. Forexample, in the Co-op research almost twothirds of consumers would be prepared toboycott a product on ethical grounds.

Brand names should not be derived fromemotive words and images such as natural,quality, pure, fresh and bio. This should beprohibited by appropriate legislation andstandards. In the absence of this, consumerorganisations should inform consumers aboutinappropriate and misleading brand names,highlighting bad practice.

6.1.3 Misleading marketing associations

Commercial companies and particularly foodcompanies, often link up with well-knownand reputable charitable or campaigningorganisations to endorse their products.

The reasons for such relationships can bevaried and include fund-raising, improvingcorporate image, raising awareness ofcharitable causes such as environmental orhealth issues, or purely marketing ventures.

EXAMPLES

• Bread 'PANDA BRØD' (Panda bread)displays the World Wildlife Fund (WWF)logo – and a statement supporting WWF-Norway. The label states that: 'Panda bread'is a very nutritious and savoury breadmade with ingredients from all over theworld ....' The packaging prominentlydisplays the label, logo and brandassociation of one of the best-knowninternational environmental organisations.However, there is no information about thesupport given to WWF-Norway from this

Results

27

produced to better, more sustainableproduction standards. And we expected to beable to verify this, from information on thelabel or by reference to further details, forexample from a website.

ISO 14021:1999(E)17

Article 5.7 sets out thespecific requirements for all self-declaredenvironmental claims and requires that self-declared claims be accompanied by anexplanatory statement, be accurate,substantiated and verified (see Annex 2).

Without explanation and independentverification, explicit, self-declared claims arevague, meaningless and somewhat suspect.We found many examples of such claims.

6.2.1 Production and marketing of eggs

As consumers became aware of the intensifi-cation of egg production, and particularly theuse of 'battery cages', means to differentiatebetween different types of egg (and poultry)production have been sought. Labelling andmarketing terms have consequently beenregulated to differentiate between methods ofproduction. There are many categories for eggproduction and labelling terms, from trulyfree roaming, open access to the outdoors,barn production, and intensive battery-cageegg production. However, these terms are notalways clear, explicit, or quite what consumersmight expect.

EU regulations of the marketing and labellingof eggs

23have recently been simplified to

reduce the number of terms and productioncategories, and better explain productionterms. The regulations now permit use of onlythese explicit terms: organic, free-range, barnand cage.

In the US, standards and labels for eggproduction were criticised by Consumers'Union in its April 2002 report 'ScrambledLabels: Egg Production in the United States'

24.

Consumers have strong images andexpectations: free-range should mean free-range, with mandatory open access and the

ability to range-freely outdoors, rather than asthe EU and US legislation permits – access tooutdoors for limited times each day, whichcould mean that a chicken that never actuallygoes outdoors could still be labelled as freerange. Barn evokes particular images, butseldom those of the reality where literallythousands of hens are restricted for theirwhole lives in enormous enclosed 'barns'.

We found images and text on 17 samples with6 different types of claims.

EXAMPLES

• Eggs the picture shows six happy free-rangehens being hand-fed by a woman and'Dyrevelferd på alvor – serious on animalwelfare' claim. This is a self-declared claimwith no verification. There is no declarationor specification on the label, as legallyrequired, that these eggs are in fact free-range. The misleading image and text givesthe impression of a better standard thanwhat in reality appears to be the case.

• Free-range eggs the front image and innerstatements contradict. The pictures thatappear on the front label show chickens in afield, however inside the package it statesthat the hens are raised in the barn withmore room and that the eggs are laid inspecial nests. The production standards areneither clear nor verified. Consumers willbe confused by these contradictorymessages.

• 'Scratch' eggs bear the text explaining thatthese eggs are produced by 'Better animalwelfare with only 7 hen per m2, inconsideration for the welfare of the hens'.EU regulations permit 9 hens per squaremetre. So while these standards might beslightly better than the legal requirementsthey do little to assure consumers that therehas been a significant improvement inanimal welfare conditions. While to becommended for the explicit declaration,these conditions are still considered bysome consumers to be somewhatovercrowded. In addition, the image shows

23 COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 2295/2003, introducing detailed rules for implementing Council Regulation (EEC)No1907/90 on certain marketing standards for eggs (OJ L 340,24.12.2003).24 'Scrambled Labels: Egg Production in the United States' Full story available at www.eco-labels.org/feature.cfm?FeatureID=1&isPast=1

Green food claims

28

7 hens with what appears to be more spacethan the declaration claims – which gives amisleading impression.

• Eggs Cage Free, Free Running. These are self-declared claims that are regulated fortruthfulness while not defined by FDA.However USDA's definition for this claim issomewhat obscure and does not necessarilymean that animals were allowed to runoutdoors, only that they were given theoption to go outdoors or not confined to acage. Consumers could be confused bythese claims, thinking that Cage Free, FreeRunning meant outdoor access, but in thiscase, it does not.

Conclusions

Many claims, images and standards for theproduction and marketing of eggs werecomplex and potentially confusing forconsumers. They were widespread in allcountries.

6.2.2 Animal welfare: meat

Animal welfare has increasingly become afactor influencing consumers' food choices.Not only are there concerns that animalsshould be treated humanely during theirlifetime but there are also legitimate concernsthat animal welfare can have impacts on foodsafety, quality and the taste of meat.

The conditions in which food-producinganimals live their lives, what they are fed, andhow they are transported and slaughtered,have all awakened consumers' concerns.Consumers seek production methods thatrespect natural behaviour and habits. Forexample, free-ranging, outdoor rearing,instead of indoor factory production aresought by some consumers who are willing topay a price premium.

Producers, aware of consumers' concerns foranimal welfare have in some countries set upanimal welfare endorsement schemes forproduction standards that are independentlyinspected and verified. However, some privateindustry schemes, on closer inspection do notalways appear to live up to what weconsidered might reasonably have been

expected to command a price premium forbetter animal welfare. Nor have they alwaysbeen formulated with consumer input.

In the US, a claim of 'natural' has nothing todo with the method of production but ratherthe cut of meat itself. Therefore a meat productlabelled as 'natural' could have been producedfor instance with antibiotics in feed.

We investigated three types of meat productswith a total of 17 green claims, particularlyabout 'naturally raised' or 'free-range'production methods.

6.2.2a 'Naturally raised'Emotive words and ambiguous claims such as'natural' or 'naturally raised' were found,particularly on chicken products, in severaldifferent countries.

EXAMPLES

• Chicken labelled as 'All Vegetable Diet, NoAntibiotics Administered, No Animal By-Products, All Natural'. There was no detailor verification for any of these claims.

• Chicken claimed that: 'The high quality ofthis meat is influenced by natural breedingand the quality of feed – maize, wheat andsoya with no materials of animal origin'.There is also a claim for 'proper' processingin a so-called 'considerate way', whichclaims to extend shelf-life and preserves thequalities of taste and naturalness. There wasno verification or further details for any ofthese statements (see photo below).

• Chicken declared the 'True taste of naturalraised chicken'. This is a vague, non-specificclaim with no verification.

Results

29

Conclusions

These claims and declarations are self-declared, vague and unsupported. No specificdetails were given of any standards, how orby whom these were enforced and inspected.It is difficult to know what if any 'added'value these claims demonstrate, whether theycan be trusted or are purely marketing terms.

6.2.2b 'Free range' This term was found on several meatproducts, yet it was neither defined on labels,nor in any related production standards.

EXAMPLES

• Free-range pork chops Recommended by'Dyrenes Beskyttelse' (The Danish AnimalWelfare Society). The pigs live for 5 weeksfrom birth truly 'free range' yet for the restof their lives – up to 6 months, they onlyhave access to an outdoor run. Standardsare explained on the website but do notappear to fully support the claim. 'DyrenesBeskyttelse' participates in developing therules for these free-range pigs, and is alsothe control body. Hence there is a lack ofindependence in this programme. TheDanish Consumer Council reported thisclaim to the authorities. The complaint wasnot in our opinion given due considerationto reflect consumers' concerns since it wasnot upheld. The producer was allowed tocontinue making this claim.

• Pork escallope The brand name of theseproducts translated means 'village in thealps'. It shows a mountain-farm, with ameadow, wood, mountains and adeclaration that it is fed, slaughtered, cut,packed and quality checked in Austria. Thisself-declared claim promotes the image oftraditional rural farming where pigs are keptin the mountains. In fact this product is soldin a discount store and most of the Austrianpork is produced in an intensive industrialway, not in rural mountainous areas.

Conclusions

These self-declared free-range claims wereunsubstantiated, with no third partyverification or public access to the standards.

It is unclear what 'free-range' means inpractice for animal raising since there is nolegal definition. In the US, the USDA iscurrently developing standards to define 'freerange' for ruminant animals, which wouldmean that they would never have beenconfined to a feedlot.

Industry definitions and standards mightdiffer significantly from what consumersexpect. Without broad consumer consultationand/or input to the development of standardsthere can be no assurance that theyadequately address consumers' legitimateconcerns. In addition, independence is neededseparating industry agencies from developing,implementing and policing standards.

6.2.3 Fishing

Fish is a popular and healthy food choice forconsumers in all countries. However, over-fishing and depleted stocks of ocean fish aremajor sustainability issues for consumers andproducers alike.

Maintaining adequate stocks of fish for asustainable future, especially of species thathave been over-fished is a significant problemin Europe and the US. Many fishing policiesare controversial since they can adverselyimpact on current availability and price of fishwhile attempting to ensure futuresustainability and availability of fish, and thebalance of ecosystems in the oceans.

As an alternative and complement to fishingthe seas for wild fish, fish farming hasdeveloped to become a major industry. Yetthis has not been without its problems and theenvironmental impact of intensive fishfarming in coastal waters has been criticised.This has become an issue of consumerconcern, which is beginning to be investigatedby consumer organisations in severalcountries, including Norway, Denmark andthe US.

Conserving fish stocks to ensure futuresustainability is important. Information andclaims to communicate these efforts toconsumers are beginning to appear on labels.However, consumers should not be confusedabout the differences, say between farmed and

Green food claims

30

wild fish, especially given the price premiumscommanded for the latter.

In our research we found 45 claims on 12different products, ranging from fresh, tofrozen and canned fish varieties, such as trout,salmon, pollock, hake, mussels and mostsignificantly tuna. These claims were for awhole range of green issues, particularly forsustainable and conservation fishing,demonstrating that producers, at least,consider them to be important to promote.However to what extent these claims werejustified and actually contributed to moresustainable fishing stocks was questionable insome cases.

6.2.3a Sustainable fishingMeans to ensure sustainable fish stocks arebeing developed, including measures such asrestricted fishing zones and fish farming.

In Europe, fisheries policy is often one of themost political and controversial debates, tryingto balance sustainability of fish stocks with theeconomics of the fishing industry. In themeantime, consumers need long-term,sustainable, secure fish supplies, aided by clearinformation and labelling. However, claimsand the details, standards and policies to backthem up were often found to be inadequate.

EXAMPLES

• Fish (Dentex gibbosus) fillets with the 'golettaverde-Legambiente' logo, claimed to be'better for the environment', but additionalinformation was vague and standards werenot explained (see photo below).

• Hake fillets displayed a 'Friend of the Sea'logo. The box gave more information aboutthe 'Friend of the Sea' international projectto protect the environment, which is

supported by a major supermarket. Therewas no information about these privatestandards, the organisation issuing the logoor verifying it – if indeed it wasindependently verified.

• Frozen mountain trout from Peru claimed tobe a natural product stating: 'Naturens renesmak' – Pure nature taste.

Conclusions

These fishing claims did not appear to beadequately justified from the labels and theinformation we found.

Self-declared claims that are not independentlyverified are not valid in our opinion: we foundvague meaningless terms on a variety of fishproducts, which did not conform to thespecific requirements of ISO 14021:1999(E)

17.

6.2.3b Conservation fishing Polices to conserve fish and developsustainable policies for improved long-termviability of fishing are to be welcomed.

The labels that we found to communicatesustainable and conservation fishing were inour opinion misleading. Consumers were notable to make appropriate choice in support ofbetter, more sustainable fishing methods.

EXAMPLES

• Cod Fillet 'Population-conserving fishery'was claimed with the statement that: 'Wecarefully select our distributors: ourdistributors are committed to useenvironmental friendly methods of catch and to comply with the internationalfishery-regulations. So that the fishingresources are conserved for futuregenerations.' The aim is commendable but what this means in practice is not clear, nor how fish stocks were supposedlyconserved.

• Pollock in Breadcrumbs stated that: 'Fish ispart of nature and in no way inexhaustible,therefore our company is against the over-fishing of our seas. We commit our fish-distributors to use only conservation fishingmethods, and to comply with all the

Results

31

international laws of fishery'. Whilelaudable, this statement confers noadditional benefits over and above the legalrequirements.

Conclusions

The claims attested that the legal requirementsare being met. Delivering over and above thelegally required standards is commendable.However making a claim that the currentinternational standard is being met isirrelevant – all products on sale shouldconform to the legal standards as a minimumrequirement.

6.2.3c Farmed fish Wild-caught fish command a price premiumand should not be confused with farmed fishthat is generally sold at lower prices and canlead to environmental contamination. The USCountry of Origin Labelling law is now ineffect and gives oversight to wild-caught andfarm raised fish.

EXAMPLE

• Smoked salmon was labelled as producedfrom 'freshly landed' salmon, a claim thatseemed to be associated with wild caughtsalmon. But the additional declaration'Atlantic salmon farmed in zone 27' insmaller size fonts, which was located at thebottom of the label gave information aboutthe true origin of the salmon: a fish farm ina zoned fish farming area.

Conclusion

The declaration in smaller fonts that the fishwas 'farmed' was obscure for consumers, whomight have been more drawn to the moreattractive term 'freshly landed', whichappeared in bigger fonts in a central locationon the packaging.

6.2.3d Dolphin conservation: canned tuna fishOver the years there has been considerablepublicity about the harm caused to dolphinsfrom inappropriate tuna fishing, which hascaught the media and consumers' attention in

many countries. Dolphins can be accidentallycaught in nets used for fishing tuna, reducingtheir numbers and threatening their futuresurvival.

Various standards to reduce the harm todolphins while fishing for tuna are beingestablished by organisations such as the EarthIsland Institute (EII), which owns a privatelabel. There is also an intergovernmentalagreement for dolphin conservation – TheAgreement on the International DolphinConservation Program (AIDCP) – which setsstrict standards for implementation andmonitoring of fishing by independentobservers – something that is lacking in otherstandards. The EC has signed this voluntaryagreement

25, however it does not include any

requirements for labelling.

Most of the brands of canned tuna fish webought had some form of logo or declarationclaiming that it had been caught withoutharming dolphins. Six different wordingsand/or logos were found on 25 tins of tunabought in six countries. There was nouniformity of definition, claim or logo.

EXAMPLES

The list below corresponds to the differenttypes of claims we found on tins of tuna.

• Dolphin friendly

• Dolphin safe

• Caught with fishing-tools harmless todolphins

• No threat to the Dolphin species

• Dolphin safe, drift net free

• Certified fishing – dolphin protection

Conclusions

All these claims seek the same objective – todemonstrate that dolphins were not harmedwhen fishing for tuna. We observed a

25 Council Regulation (EC) no 882/2003 of May 2003 lays down the general principles and conditions relating to the Community'sapplication of the tuna tracking and verification system adopted by the AIDCP.

Green food claims

32

proliferation of such terms and logos, which often appear on similar products,alongside one another. But what do they mean and what assurance do they give toconsumers?

Virtually all the canned tuna with 'dolphinfriendly' type claims had self declared vague,meaningless claims or logos, with littleinformation, or verification to back up themup. Many of the terms had no meaning ordefinition in any international standards.

It is virtually impossible for consumers to findout which of these labels might deliver thebest protection for dolphins – and, what if any,the differences are between these labels andlogos.

6.2.4 Labelling for organically produced foods

Food produced from organic farming systemsmust be legally certified as 'organic' undernational and international regulations that aimto help consumers select with confidence, andprevent fraud.

Certification can be carried out by private orpublic agencies that are licensed by thenational authorities. Each certifier has its ownlicence number and logo to authenticate theprocess and the certified organic food.

However, it was obvious from our shoppingthat problems occurred with foods thatappeared to be 'organic' or 'bio' but were notcertified as such. There were examples where itwas difficult to ascertain if the product wasindeed certified as organic, as required by theregulations. To confuse matters further, somebrand names also included use of the term 'bio'causing confusion about their organic status.

Within the EU regulations3

different terms areallowed for organic in different languages. Buteven when countries use the same languagesuch as in Austria and Germany, differentterms are used. Organic products are labelled'bio' or 'biological' in Austria and in Germany'oeko' or 'oekologisch' – which means 'eco' inEnglish. Many organic products fromGermany are sold in Austria and elsewhere in

Europe. This creates confusion amongstconsumers since both terms can be usedaccording to EU law.

In the US, federal authorities have beenwarned about problems with organic labelledfish. The USDA has now decided that it willnot allow the USDA-organic seal on fish sinceit needs to create organic aquaculturestandards. The Consumers Union in the US is demanding that individuals should not pay more for organic labelled fish until theUSDA has established appropriate standards.

While organically produced foods areregulated, we found confusing and 'copy-cat'organic names, labels and claims. These couldmislead consumers to believe that theseproducts had been organically produced.

6.2.4a Proliferation of organic labels and logosRegulations for the certification of organicproduction methods and compliance withthese standards are controlled within the EU

3

and the US6. Internationally guidelines for

organic food production were adopted byCodex (1999)

26, and by IFOAM (the

International Federations of OrganicAgriculture Movements), which has its ownprivate industry standard.

Private and public bodies can certify organicproducts by use of their certification logos.While this is excellent and acts as a guaranteefor consumers and honest traders, problems arearising from the large number of certificationbodies and the potentially confusing array oflabels and logos found on organically producedfoods. This proliferation of certifiers' labels isconfusing for consumers, rather thenmisleading per se, especially when importedfoods are labelled by unfamiliar certifiers.

In Norway some organic products areimported from other parts of Europe and carryofficial EU certification; but according to theConsumer Council of Norway, EU labels andcertifiers are not well known or recognisedamongst many Norwegian consumers.Organic products that have been made inNorway carry the Norwegian 'Ø' label that

26 Codex Alimentarius, 1999 Guidelines on the Production, Processing, Labelling and Marketing of Organically Produced FoodsFAO, Rome.

National case studies

33

stands for 'Økologisk produksjon' (organicproduction) and is officially certified. Thislabel is certified by Debio, which is the officialcontrol and certifying organisation in Norway.For retailers importing organic products fromthe EU to Norway it is voluntary to use the Ø-label, in addition to the required EU label.

In Denmark there is a national voluntaryorganic labelling scheme which is well known.The Danish 'Ø' scheme is used on nationaland imported organic food products if theseare packaged or labelled in Denmark. TheDanish 'Ø' organic labelling scheme is helpfulto consumers in assuring them about theauthentication of organic status since it canonly be used on officially certified organicfood products. In addition the DanishVeterinary and Food Administration is theonly official certification agency in Denmark,hence there is only one certification logo andlabel for organically produced foods.

In the US over the past two years, the numberof organic certifiers has doubled from 50 toover 100. As a result, consumers are facedwith a barrage of organic labels. While thiscan be confusing, all of these labels arerequired to be accredited by the USDA.

EXAMPLES:

• Corn Flakes were labelled as organic but theNorwegian certification was not present.The official Danish organic label (Ø-mærket) was present since the product islegally certified in Denmark. Yet this label,according to the Consumer Council ofNorway, is not well known as organic byNorwegian consumers; and it can thereforebe confusing and difficult for them to trust.

• Four-grain bread rye bread carried theDemeter logo and a 99% organicdeclaration. Demeter is a private organiclabel whose standards conform to the EUorganic regulations. Although legal, thislabel is, according to the Danish ConsumerCouncil, unfamiliar to consumers inDenmark. They could be confused by it andconsequently mistrust this label and logo.Indeed, this sample was selected in ourDanish shopping survey as a misleading/confusing organic claim.

Conclusions

Consumers are becoming overwhelmed by theproliferation of unfamiliar organic logos,wondering if these unknown certifiers areofficially recognised or not.

International trade in organically producedfoods is facilitated by the mutual recognitionof standards for organic production. Yet thesewould be unfamiliar to consumers outside thehost county. As a result of the proliferation ofcertification logos and schemes, consumertrust in organically produced foods is beingundermined by lack of familiarity with, andunderstanding of them.

Consumers who are willing to pay a pricepremium for organically produced foods needcredible information on labels. The findings ofour survey revealed that identifying importedorganic officially certified food products canbe quite difficult in countries such as Norwayand Denmark.

6.2.4b Confusion with organic foods• A breakfast cereal bought in several

countries carried the claim 'Better for theEnvironment' and a 'Conservation Grade'symbol explained as: 'the assurance that thecereals used in this product have beengrown by farmers who do not use harmfulpesticides and herbicides, as a guarantee of a100% natural product'. This conservationclaim could be confused with organicproduction. The difference between the twosystems was not clear (see photo below).

• Fresh Carrots from Marchfeld in Austria,which is unique for its climate and fertilesoil. These claimed to be produced by 'envi-ronmentally friendly' methods. There wasno verification for this claim, which couldbe confused with organic productionmethods.

Green food claims

34

Conclusions

These claims are exactly the type thatconsumers would be seeking if they wanted topurchase green foods. However, these termscan be confusing – what are the standards for'conservation grade' and 'environmentallyfriendly production'? How do they comparewith organic production? Can consumers beconfident in these claims?

As there appears to be no independentverification of these claims, or details aboutthe standards, these are merely self-declared,unverified claims, offering consumers noassurance that these products have attributesthat deliver and contribute to more sustainablefood production.

6.2.4c Misleading 'bio' brand names'Bio' means many things in different countriesand languages – it is widely used, not only fororganic foods but also, for example, on dairyproducts such as Bio yoghurts, that are notorganically certified.

In some European countries such as Austria,'bio' is the recognised and regulated term for'organically' produced foods. In the CzechRepublic it is not allowed for use on any foodswhich do not originate from certified organicfarms. It is not a regulated term in Sloveniaand Romania.

We found many non-organic products withbrand names that included the term 'bio'.

EXAMPLES

• Beans with soya sausage, peppers filledwith soya meat, 'Complex Bio' Sano Vitaflaked cereals, and muesli all included theterm 'bio' in their brand names and gave theimpression of being 'organic'. None of theseproducts had organic certification (seephoto below).

Conclusions

Brand names including the term 'bio' can bemisleading if products are not organicallycertified.

Within the EU use of the term 'bio' as a brandname for non-organic products has now beprohibited and such names should be phasedout by 2009. A reduction in the number ofproducts with 'bio', as part of the brand name,has already been noticed in Austria, but is stillnot the case in some other countries such asthe Czech Republic.

6.3 Additional claims and labelling issues

6.3.1 Definition and terms

In our survey we found some terms used onfood labels whose exact definition wasquestioned with regards to food productionmethods.

We found many products with prominentclaims where the meaning was far from clearand was at times confused with green claims,particularly regarding the method ofproduction.

We found that many of the same terms wereused in different countries but with differentmeanings. This was particularly the caseacross Europe. Language and the terms usedto support sustainable agriculture and foodproduction is evolving, particularly on foodlabels. But there is confusion over definitionsand terms that are actually useful to helpconsumers make informed sustainable foodchoices.

Use of terms such as 'natural', 'fresh' and 'pure'were confusing. What exactly did they mean?Were these food products any better produced,to higher standards than their counterparts?Was there really any 'added value' and/ormore sustainable production method? Werethere any implications for 'green' claims? Orwere these terms merely marketing terms?

There are no international definitions orguidelines for these terms. However,recognising their potential to mislead

National case studies

35

consumers some national food authoritieshave developed guidance for the use of suchvague terms.

In Denmark, the food authority (The DanishVeterinary and Food Administration) hasproduced guidelines for the interpretation ofEU legislation regarding misleading labellingand marketing of food and specific claims andterms

27. Since 1997 there have been several

major campaigns on misleading food labellingon products and in advertising in Denmark,with a consequent reduction in the number ofmisleading claims. As a result relatively fewmisleading food claims are now found inDenmark.

Similarly in 2002 the UK, the Food StandardsAgency (FSA) issued a report on Criteria forthe Use of the Terms Fresh, Pure, Natural, etcin Food Labelling

28. This aimed to help

producers provide clarity in labelling.However, a survey published in February2004

29indicated that up to 40% of the labels

informally investigated were considered notto comply with the guidance. This gives aclear indication that in the UK such claimscontinue to be used in a way that ispotentially misleading to consumers.

Official guidance and definitions for the issueof fresh and/or natural labelling does notspecifically relate to green claims, but theseterms are interpreted as green claims in somecountries. In the US, these terms relate tomethod of production, to where and how thefood was produced, and from whatenvironment. For example, orange juice wasoften described as 'natural' but what did thismean? Is it 100% orange juice as it would be ifit were freshly squeezed, straight from nature,or not? Has it been frozen or concentrated? Ifso, can it still be labelled as 'natural'? Similarlyfor the term 'fresh' – how fresh is fresh? InItaly it is important for consumers todistinguish fresh pasta from dried pasta butdried pasta can also be fresh. These terms areconfusing for consumers, especially as whentranslated the interpretation can be confusing.

Many examples had claims, words andimages depicting fresh and natural – emotivewords with strong associations, that ourshoppers clearly identified as linked to themethod of production.

EXAMPLES

• Orange Juice Premium Orange Juice 100%pure. Both these statements areunsupported and lack verification.Additional information is provided on sideof package yet there is no official standard,verification or explanation of what thesestatements means.

• Seafood Sticks The name of these seafoodsticks 'Enghav' translated means 'Meadow-ocean' and gives the impression that it is anatural, pure seafood product. The truth isthat they are made from fish meat with addedartificial colouring and flavour additives.

Conclusions

Use of terms such as natural, pure, fresh, etc.was found to be extensive across manycountries and food types.

There is uncertainty and confusion about theuse of many of these terms, which canpotentially mislead consumers. In Europe,given the extended single market across 25countries, there are many possibilities for misinterpretation of these emotive but vagueterms on food labels.

These terms need to be better addressed bynational and international guidelines and/orstandards.

6.3.2 Translation of terms and brand names

Within the EU food products sold in onecountry can legally be sold in any othermember state. However this can causeproblems for established branded productsmoving into new markets where translation of

27 Danish guidelines on the prohibition of misleading labelling and the marketing of food, implementing EU Directive2000/13/EF and Directive 2001/101/EF 28 Criteria for the Use of the Terms Fresh, Pure, Natural, etc. in Food Labelling. Food Standards Agency, UK July 2002. Availablefrom the FSA website: www.food.gov.uk29 Survey report: an investigation of the use of terms such as natural, fresh, etc. in food labelling, Food Standards Agency, UKFebruary 2004. Available from the FSA website: www.food.gov.uk

Green food claims

36

the name into a different language and/orculture can cause confusion and misunder-standings.

Many different terms and derivative nameswere found from 'natural'. Cultural normsprevailed with the names of yoghurt, butwhen products move into new marketsconsumers can be confused. Unflavouredyoghurt is labelled as 'plain' in many countriesincluding Slovenia and the US; while in theCzech Republic it is called 'white'; in Denmarkand Norway it is called 'naturel'.

EXAMPLE

• Baby foods with the BIO logo with a smallleaf to accentuate the graphic design of thelogo. 'Bio' is recognised and understood asorganic under European regulations inAustria, Germany etc. However the organicdeclaration in the Slovene language isbiologija or bioloski derived from the wordfor nature. Use of the term 'bio', which isnot currently regulated in Slovenia presentsitself as a self-declared claim, which isconfusing and meaningless to the consumer.While this baby food brand is normallycertified organic, in this instance a sticker(with translated nutritional information)covered the official certification labelmaking the organic status questionable.

• Yoghurt had a derivative of the word'natural' in the brand name. Czech nationallegislation does not allow the use of the word'prírodní' (natural) except in some casesdefined in the legislation. Use of translatedterms is not specifically prohibited but it maybe misleading for consumers.

Conclusion

Some terms when used on foods traded inter-nationally can create unintentional problems intranslation.

Companies moving products into new markets(such as in new EU member countries) havemade inadequate preparations to translatelabels into appropriate languages. Companiescould exploit this to the consumer detriment.

We came across this problem incidentally inour research and further work is needed inthis area. The basic principles of consumerinformation could be overridden as foodexporters take advantage of new markets.

Inappropriately placed translation stickerscause unexpected problems with significantconsequences – for example, making theorganic status of a product invalid.

6.3.4 Private standards

Private standards, outside the formallegislative system are often developed by tradeor professional bodies.

These are often welcomed since they oftenpromote best practice throughout an industry.However, where industry sets and promotesits own standards through labelling schemesand logos, it raises issues of openness andaccountability.

Private standards in some instances areinadequately explained to consumers, andwhile addressing industry issues, may notaddress consumers' concerns.

For example, The Marine Stewardship Council(MSC) was initially set up with support fromUnilever to promote sustainable fishing. MSChas developed commendable fishing standardsand labels, but these are not generally regardedas independent since there was no input fromconsumers and other major stakeholders in thesetting up process. Likewise, The Earth IslandInstitute is a private standards body certifying adolphin friendly logo. These standards are notwell known by consumers and it appears thatthere has not been consumer or publicinvolvement in their development.

EXAMPLES

• Hoki-Fillet was labelled as being 'capturedfreshly from the open sea' and claim that'…it is important for us to conserve thefishing resources through responsiblefishery'. This product comes from a fisherythat complies with the environmentalstandards of the Marine Stewardship

National case studies

37

Council. While commendable for its effortsto support sustainable fishing, the MSC isthought to be too close to industry andlacks broad public input to its standards.

• Canned tuna has a dolphin friendly logo,which according to the importer is certifiedby the Earth Island Institute's privatestandards. These were developed withoutbroad consumer and public input and arenot widely available. In the shoppers' view,the information available is not clear enoughfor consumers to understand the attributevalues of this certification programme.

Conclusion

Industry standards can be an importantmeans to promote best practice and raisestandards, in advance of formal legalstandards.

Private standards are often limited by lack ofconsumer input to their development andconsequently do not address consumersconcerns, nor are they always open to publiccomment or scrutiny.

6.3.4 Packaging claims

Many claims were found on packagingemphasising recyclable claims and logos. Insome countries such as Germany, there aregood labelling systems and the relevantfacilities for recycling, particularly under TheGreen Dot or Der Grüne Punkt trademarkscheme.

However irrelevant information was found onmany products sold outside the country oforigin, where there was reference to a localscheme. For example, a logo or label mightmake reference to recycling, but when aproduct is exported local facilities may not beavailable to put the theory into practice wherethe food is eventually sold. Recycling facilitiesshould exist within easy reach of wherepackaging waste is disposed, according to therequirement of ISO 14021:1999(E)

7.

EXAMPLES

• Frozen Fish packaged in a poly-bag madewith the explicit claim 'for the protection ofthe environment'. This was qualified toread 'with this poly-bag we can protect theproduct with minimal packaging. This bagis environmentally friendly made by usingpolyethylene, which means lower use ofenergy, and lower environmental costs toair and water. Polyethylene consists only ofcarbon and hydrogen. This poly-bag can bedisposed in an environmentally friendlyway with corresponding sorting and return.Under the Green Dot scheme the materialcan be recycled.' However, this packagingwaste is not recycled in Austria, most isburned with household refuse and hencethe claimed environmental benefits are notrealised.

• Canned tuna and Mushrooms pieces with aGreen Dot logo, however there are noappropriate recycling facilities neither inSlovenia nor in Romania to support theGreen Dot recycling scheme.

Conclusions

Various recyclable logos were found onpackaging for example, in Denmark, Romania,and Austria but without the relevantexplanations or facilities to fully implementeffective recycling and recyclable schemes. InSlovenia, manufacturers were using recyclablelabels on packaging but were unaware of therelevant legislation to operate relevantrecycling schemes.

Green food claims

38

7.1 Conclusions

Issues relating to the sustainability of the foodwe consume are legitimate consumer concernsacross the world. It is imperative that policymakers and industry acknowledge them assuch within the formulation of standards andlegislation as well as with the use of claims.

Labels and claims offer one of the options andopportunities to communicate added value toconsumers. In our study we found a largenumber of different logos and claims that werevague, meaningless, non-transparent, lackedstandards and/or third party verification.Besides being intrinsically misleading, such aproliferation of claims could undermineconsumer trust and confidence in valid claims.

The green food claims that we found, for themost part, did not help those consumers whowanted to purchase food products produced ina sustainable way. Indeed in some cases itcomplicated choice, and thus preventedchanges in market behaviour that couldpositively impact on bringing aboutsustainable development.

Specifically we found significant problemswith:

• Doubtful claims of numerous types relatedto preventing harm to dolphins on cannedtuna. We foresee the same problem withother types of fish since other similarstandards are being developed.

• Proliferation of the number of officialorganic certification logos, as well as'unofficial' logos resulting in confusion andan undermining of consumers' trust in theorganic production method.

• Misleading brand names (including theissue of the different meaning of brandnames in different languages not beingaddressed).

• Standards/legislation that does not meetconsumers' basic expectations.

• ISO and Codex standards being largelyignored.

• We found misleading claims on foodproducts produced in countries that did not take part in this survey. This leads us to the conclusion that the problem isextensive, particularly within the European region.

• In EU accession countries there is lack ofunderstanding about the legislation andclaims from consumers and producers alike.

• In northern European countries the mainproblem identified is the proliferation ofboth organic certification logos and non-transparent fish certification schemes.

Consumers are increasingly interested inpurchasing products with 'added value' inaspects of sustainability, thereby acceptingtheir role and responsibility for making acontribution to a more sustainable planet. Oursurvey has shown that unfortunately this iscurrently, to a large extent, unattainable due tothe lack of substantiated and verifiable greenclaims and logos.

To improve this situation and enableconsumers to exercise their rights to beinformed, choice, and a healthy andsustainable environment, we stronglyrecommend the following:

7 Conclusions and recommendations

Conclusions and recommendations

7.2 Recommendations

• Labels and claims on food should be clearand unambiguous – where they are not,enforcement action should be undertaken toensure that they are.

• Misleading and unsubstantiated imagesshould not be used to convey inappropriatemessages, particularly about productionmethods. This is clearly against agreed ISOand Codex recommendations.

• Better enforcement of current food labellingregulations is required to ensure compliancewith national and international standardsand regulations; as well as to prevent thewidespread use of misleading green foodclaims that undermine consumer trust.

• The right for consumer organisations to takelegal action as aggrieved party should beencouraged and facilitated where it does notexist.

• Qualified claims should provide clarity andtransparency, making information availableabout what terms mean, how the standardsbehind the claim were set and how theyhave been monitored and enforced. All thisinformation should be provided on the labelin the same field of vision. In short, thespecific requirements of ISO 14021:1999(E),Article 5.7, on environmental labels anddeclarations – self-declared environmentalclaims (Type II environmental labelling)should be implemented.

• Whether private or public, all foodstandards for food labels and claims shouldbe developed with stakeholder involvementand respond to the public interest. Inaddition, standards should be publiclyavailable, open and accessible so thatconsumers can be sure of their validity. Thiswould enable labels and claims to be moremeaningful and acceptable rather thanvague, meaningless claims based onindustry standards that often fail toadequately address consumers' legitimateconcerns with respect to sustainability.

• Where explicit claims and statements arecommunicated to consumers, these should

be explained and validated by third partyverification to ensure consumer confidence.Verification should be by independentbodies that are open to public scrutiny.

• Claims that 'legally required standards' arebeing met are irrelevant for consumers, andshould be prohibited.

• More consumer information and educationabout the standards behind claims and whatthese terms really mean in practice isessential.

• There is a need for the development andadoption of a harmonised worldwidestandard for catching tuna that does notharm dolphins. This should be initiated andadopted by Codex Alimentarius. Oneuniform logo should be used tocommunicate the standard to consumers.

• Consideration should be given to adoptingharmonised international organic logos andlabels. In addition there should beappropriate education and informationcampaigns to explain the officialcertification procedures and organic labelsand logos.

• Enforcement action should be taken toensure that organically produced foods arenot undermined by illegally named andlabelled products.

• Research should be conducted withconsumers to find a solution to the problemof the proliferation of organic labels andlogos. There is a need to define onerecognisable official organic logo forinternational use, alongside national officiallogos.

• Brand names should not be derived fromemotive words and images such as natural,quality, pure, fresh and bio. This should beprohibited by appropriate legislation andstandards. In the absence of this, consumerorganisations should inform consumersabout inappropriate and misleading brandnames, highlighting bad practice.

• The nature of any association, endorsement,or link, with for example, an environmental

39

Green food claims

40

or farming organisation, be it forfundraising, awareness raising orendorsement of a particular quality orproduction standard, should be statedexplicitly and clearly alongside the logo orclaim. If the relationship is for marketingpurposes and the product confers little orno added value, consumers should not bemisled to the contrary by such'associations'.

• Recycling claims on packaging need to besupported by appropriate recyclingfacilities, within easy reach of disposal asrequired by ISO 14021:1999(E) Article 7.7.2.,which should be implemented and enforcedby national legislation.

• Definitions and accurate explanations ofterms for sustainable food production andconsumption are needed, particularly forconsumer education and food labelling.Terms such as natural, eco, fresh, bio andpure while sometimes being defined at thenational level according to the culturalcontext, also need to be re-examined at theinternational level.

• Harmonisation of terms and logos used inclaims, as well as the claim as a whole, isessential. While this is to some extenttaking place, there are still too manyconfusing images and claims used inaddition to official definitions such as ondifferent terms for the marketing of eggs.

• Guidelines for interpreting misleading foodclaims, words and terms should includesustainability issues. Existing guidelinessuch as those produced in Denmark shouldbe replicated and adapted to the nationalneeds of individual countries.

• Further research is needed to investigatethe extent of language and translationproblems on food claims, to agreedefinitions of terms, and to ensure thatconsumers are not being misled. Given thedifferences in cultural interpretation,guidance should be issued at the nationallevel.