EU organic food may be sidelined by pending eco-labeling scheme, IFOAM warns

03 Feb 2022 --- The EU organic sector has hit back at plans to harmonize green claims and create eco-labels that cover the nutritional, climate, environmental and social aspects of food production, branding the situation as “worrying.” 

The EU’s “Product Environmental Footprint” (PEF) is intended to measure the environmental impact of commercial goods and is the framework of a new labeling policy slated for next year.

However, critics of this policy argue that it lacks substantial benchmarking metrics, which may lead to losses for organic food producers.

“The bottom line is that the PEF per its construction inherently favors intensive rather than extensive production systems,” underscores the umbrella group of organics producers,” states Organic food association IFOAM Organics Europe.

While this methodology is relevant for manufactured industrial products, IFOAM asserts it is not adapted to food products.

“For example, it gives aberrant results where eggs from caged hens get the best score, whereas free range, organic eggs score worse. The reason for this is that when applied to food, PEF is merely an indicator of yield that does not consider externalities such as impacts on biodiversity, pesticide use and animal welfare.”

Critics of the PEF policy argue that it lacks substantial benchmarking metrics, which may lead to losses for organic food producers.A harmonized labeling system is required
IFOAM’s critique of the European Commission’s move to anchor its labeling policy on the PEF does not mean the farmer organization is entirely against harmonized labeling.

Different labels support different visions of the future agri-food system and, therefore, choosing a certain label over another can either support or oppose a transition toward more sustainable food systems.

As IFOAM highlights: “Consumers trust and recognize the organic label and the need to avoid confusion. Existing labels such as the organic label and the EU eco label have been well established for many years and should be accurately considered in this process.”

Evidencing this claim, the 2020 Eurobarometer revealed that more consumers are now aware of the EU’s organic logo, with 56% of respondents recognizing the logo, an increase of 29% compared to 2017.

People believe that organic products are more likely to comply with specific rules on pesticides, fertilizers and antibiotics (82% agreed); are more environmentally friendly (81%); and are produced with higher respect for animal welfare (80%).

Too many logos
A specific concern of IFOAM Organics Europe is that introducing PEF-based claims in a way that does not consider the benefits of organic agriculture would “greatly undermine” the existing efforts of the Commission to increase the recognition of the organic logo among consumers, as well as to protect the term “organic” and the products it covers.

A proliferation of numerous on-pack labels could lead to consumer confusion, IFOAM highlights.In addition, the group proposes there may be a risk that claims will create confusion regarding organic products. Consumers might not be fully aware of the differences between an organic product and a product that bears a good PEF score.

“Also, the use of too many logos risks creating confusion for the consumer, the exact opposite of the Commission’s objectives,” states IFOAM.

For example, an organic vegetable preserve could display anything ranging from the front-of-pack nutritional labeling, to a logo on the environmental performance of products, the European organic logo, the logo with a protected indication of origin, the nutritional declaration, a nutritional label or the identification of the nature of packaging material.

Other labels include any other voluntary symbols such as “mountain product” or “product of island farming,” in addition to claims on social inclusion, the barcode, logos such as “vegetarian,” “gluten-free,” “palm oil-free.”

And last year, front-of-pack carbon labeling trials began with aims to help companies calculate, reduce and label the environmental impact of their food. 

“Even the informed consumer risks being confused by the sheer number of logos,” states IFOAM.

“In light of these concerns, we conclude that, at this stage, the PEF is not a well-enough developed instrument when it comes to making environmental claims on a product or attaching a certain percentage to the environmental performance of a certain product,” it stresses.

“We therefore propose that the PEF may only be used on a voluntary basis as an internal tool for companies to evaluate and compare the environmental performance of their products, but should not be considered the only, or a tool for demonstrating performance at the B2C level.”

By Benjamin Ferrer

To contact our editorial team please email us at editorial@cnsmedia.com