Environmental labelling for food and drinks

“Environmental impact of food and drink varies based on production methods, which means people can reduce emissions through their choices. But in order to do this, they first need to be aware of the differing environmental impacts of food and drinks.”

Nutrition labels are a familiar sight along the aisles of a supermarket. The red, amber and green traffic lights aim to encourage consumers to make healthier choices. I think the same concept can be applied to environmental impact labels to promote more sustainable consumption. Food production is an important area for decarbonisation, with the IPCC reporting the food system to be responsible for up to 37% of total emissions, predicted to increase by 40% by 2050.[1] The good news is that the environmental impact of food and drink varies based on production methods, which means people can reduce emissions through their choices. But in order to do this, they first need to be aware of the differing environmental impacts of groceries - this is where environmental impact labels come into play.

Currently, individual brands can choose to label their products with a do-it-yourself approach, often accredited by a third-party agency. Quorn and Oatley are leading the way in food and Avallen are adopting a slightly different approach for drinks by labelling their Calvados bottle with both carbon and water footprints. While it’s great that these brands are offering such transparency, the information is at risk of being an island to itself without footprint information for other products with which to compare. For example, the footprint of UK beef mince is 27.88 kgCO2e/kg compared to Quorn mince at 1.58 kgCO2e/kg.[2] It’s clear that Quorn is the more sustainable choice in terms of carbon emissions, but without the beef mince also being labelled this isn’t clear to the consumer when making a purchase decision. The success of this comparison also relies on the competitors being labelled using the same standardised methodology (which isn’t the case currently).

However, it is not all doom and gloom for environmental labelling. Recently there has been a progression from carbon labelling to more inclusive environmental impact labels considering more than just global warming potential. Lidl is to label 50 of its own-label products with ‘eco-score’ labels in a pilot starting in October. Nestlé is backing a Foundation Earth pilot project using Mondra labels based on research by the University of Oxford in stores including M&S, Sainsburys and Co-op.[3] The Mondra labels give products a sustainability from A+ to G (not unlike the EU energy labels you can find on electrontics). The scores are based on the product’s life cycle analysis and consider associated carbon emissions, biodiversity loss, water use and pollution.

At Ellers Farm we are keen to match the progress being made in the food industry and be labelling pioneers within the spirits industry. My role in the business is to calculate our forecasted product carbon footprints so we can identify hotspots to reduce emissions and from day one offset our total footprint with Gold Standard carbon offsets. This will enable us, in collaboration with Climate Partner, to label our spirits as carbon neutral and make our carbon footprints publicly available. I believe environmental impact labels are the future for a more sustainable food and drinks industry. With consumers demanding increased transparency [4] isn’t it time we give them the information they need to make more sustainable choices?

SOURCES
[1] https://www.ipcc.ch/srccl/chapter/chapter-5/
[2] https://www.quorn.co.uk/assets/files/content/Carbon-Trust-Comparison-Report-2021.pdf
[3] https://www.science.org/doi/abs/10.1126/science.aaq0216
[4] https://www.fooddive.com/news/report-consumers-want-increased-transparency-from-retailers-and-brands/532723/