Feasibility Study

EU Ecolabel for Food and Feed Products

Meeting of the EU Ecolabel BoardBrussels, 10th June2011

Contents

• Introduction to the study• Impacts, labels and feasibility• Consumer survey• Stakeholder consultation • Impacts and preliminary conclusions

Introducing the Researchers

O. Schmid H. Stolz

N. Stocke- A. Spiller brand

H. Sengst- N. Sprong schmid

Feasibility Study – Ecolabel Food and Feed

Feasibility of criteria

Interaction with existing labels

Benefits / risks for business

Benefits / risks for the environment

Confusion of consumers

Should an EU Ecolabel be introduced, and for

which product categories ?

Should Organic be required?

Approach

Scenarios – benefits and risks

Consumer attitude

Existing labelling

landscape

Stakeholder positions

Impacts, Labels and Feasibility

Helmut SengstschmidOakdene Hollins, UK

• Meat, dairy & eggs highest impact on EIPRO indicators:

• Review of LCAs: Significant impact of production methods

Environmental Impacts of Food, Feed and Drink Products

39%

19%

9%

8%

7%

6%

4%

4% 3% 2%MeatDairy & EggsBread & cerealsFruits & Vegetables BeveragesSugar & ConfectionaryVegetable OilReady mealsFish & SeafoodCoffee

Environmental Impacts of Life Cycle Stages• Primary production:

• typical 80-95% of impact (e.g. meat, fruits, vegetables)• Processing:

• often 2nd largest impact (e.g. dairy)• Transport:

• Per land / sea in general not significant – air transport is significant• Packaging:

• acc. to LCA categories: in general not significant• Retail:

• in general not significant• Consumer:

• in general significant: cooking, cooling, transport; food waste• fundamental: dietary choices

A Multitude of Labels

• Over 50 labels included in gap analysis• Organic labels:

• Strongest individual group• Based on EU Organic regulation• Focus on primary production• Current development to include other life stages and impacts

• Only a few labels reward high performance non-organic producers

• Some labels just single issue, most labels focus on primary production

Multiple issue

Life Cycle

Single issue

Primary Production

e.g. KRAV,

Milieukeur

e.g. EU Organic

MSC

e.g. Dolphin

Safe

A Gap in the Landscape

What’s missing is a Europe-wide multi-issue label covering the whole life cycle – the EU Ecolabel?

?

Feasibility of Development of Criteria – Pt.1

• Scientific foundation:• Life Cycle Analysis: excellent tool, but some relevant issues not

covered (biodiversity, fish stocks, soil fertility, animal welfare)• Output based criteria preferable, but methodological difficulties

(currently under development, e.g. Food SCP Round Table)• Input (best practices) based criteria well developed• Limits of science: - trade-offs often require value judgements / political

decisions - aspects of science in debate

Many examples of well founded criteria.

• Assessment:• Primary production: special expertise required• Complex and varying supply chains• Accreditation/certification structure (FAO guidelines) Significant differences to current EU Ecolabel.

Feasibility of Development of Criteria – Pt.2

• Cost:• Development of methodology for criteria (e.g. footprints)• Marketing• Running cost: AssessmentAssessment costs exceed provisions in EU Ecolabel Regulation.

• Legal issues:• “Eco” protected for organic (EU Organic, Codex Alimentarius)• Accreditation (FAO Guidelines)• Non-tariff trade barriers (WTO) Potential barrier, if non-organic food covered.

Example: Carbon Footprints – Pt.1• Life cycle stages:

• Primary production: severe difficulties on farm level for:• emissions from soil (N2O), emissions from ruminants (CH4),

land-use change, carbon sequestration, allocation.• Transport: models available• Processing: issue of allocation to be tackled.

• Evaluation: • Typically 10 000 – 20 000 €/product (stand alone)• Expertise needed for primary production.

• Currently, not feasible for an EU Ecolabel

Example: Carbon Footprints – Pt.2• Current development:

• Methodology (e.g. Food SCP Round Table, Environmental Footprint Project , French Grenelle)

• Data “infrastructure” (e.g. French Grenelle)Simple yet reliable method expected end of 2012.

• Available now:• Mixed approach:

Sweden: Klimatmärkning – Sigill/KRAV• Footprint for fertilizer and transport• Best practice for primary production.

Consumer Survey

Nina StockebrandUniversity of Göttingen

Objectives of the Consumer Survey – General

• To analyse product preferences in order to assess the potential market relevance of the EU Ecolabel in comparison to other labels

• To analyse the risk of confusion of organic labels and EU Ecolabel

• To analyse the different potential influencing factors on these two main objectives

Objectives of the Consumer Survey – Specific

• To evaluate differences:• Between countries with different terms for organic and

covering different parts of Europe:• Czech Republic• Spain• United Kingdom• Germany.

• Between different products:• unprocessed vs. processed• animal vs. plant based food.

Overview of Selected CountriesDevelopment

stage of organic market

Country Sample size „organic“ Risk of confusion

Emerging Czech Republic N = 296 ekologické high

Mature Germany N = 295 ökologisch biologisch (high) / low

Emerging Spain N = 291ecológicobiológicoorgánico

high / (low)

Mature UK N = 298 Organic low

Description of the Surveyed PopulationProperty Sample of Germany Examples

Sample size 295 respondents

Female/male 51,5 % / 44,7 %

Average income 2001 – 2600 €Under 900 € (12%)2001 – 2600 € (13 %)2601 - 3600 € (18 %)

Size of householdWith partner and children (27 %)Single (24 %)With partner without children (21 %)

Average age 37 years19 - 39 years (32,5 %)40 - 59 years (43 %)60 and older (24 %)

Average organic shopping 38 % „sometimes“ buy organic products

Supermarket: „often“ (38 %) Discounter: „often“ (30 %)Organic shop: „often“ (12 %)

Average environmental awareness

80 % environmental awareness (0 = none to 100 = very high)

Knowledge of Labels: Germany• Many labels are recognised, but specific meaning of

labels is often unknown• EU Ecolabel mostly unknown

Germany I recognise this I know what this means I buy this

QS (Quality and safety label) 54 % 15 % 25 %

Bio-Siegel (national organic label) 52 % 14 % 22 %

Blauer Engel (German environ. label) 50 % 12 % 22 %

EU Ecolabel 12 % 3 % 2 %

Knowledge of Labels: UK • Labels are less recognised, but the meaning is often

known • EU Ecolabel is known very well

UK I recognise this I know what this means I buy this

EU Ecolabel 37 % 22 % 13 %

EU Organic Leaf 37 % 22 % 7 %

Reducing with the Carbon Trust - CO2

35 % 20 % 11 %

Soil Association (national organic standard) 35 % 24 % 11 %

Attitude Towards Labels

5 point likert Scale: summarize „agree“ and „agree completely“ in percent

There are already so many labels for food products please no more!

Product labels help me to shop in an environmentally friendly way.

There are already so many labels a standardised European label like the EU Ecolabel could reduce the proliferation of labels.

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

51

59

51

66

62

61

GermanyUK

percent

Preferences of Consumers: the Methodology

• Ranking experiment between products • Varying parameters:

• Information text about EU Ecolabel vs. no information• Products

• Labels: Organic label, EU-Ecolabel, no label

Processed product Unprocessed product

High presence of organic Cheese Apple

Low presence of organic Fish fingers Beef

Preferences of Consumers: the UK Experiment

Preferences of Consumers: Results

• Two labels are better than one, even though they do not know the meaning of the label• 1st rank: Products with both labels (more than 50 % of

respondents)• 2nd rank: Products with Bio-Siegel• 3rd rank: Products with EU Ecolabel • Last rank: No label.

• Processed vs. unprocessed products:• D: no differences between products • UK: difference between products.

Preferences of Consumers: Reasons for Decision(results from Germany)

1. Repondents, who preferred both labels (n=57): • Two labels are better than one• They report less confusion

2. Respondents, who preferred organic label (n=37): • The label is known and trustworthy, one label is enough• Report similar confusion as no. 3

3. Respondents, who preferred EU-Ecolabel (n=7): • EU standard; organic covers not all criteria• Report similar confusion as no. 2

4. Respondents, who preferred no label (n=36): • Don't trust organic or don't buy organic; product might

be cheaper• Think there are no differences concerning

trustworthiness, environmental friendliness, health safety or taste

• Don`t see differences between labels• Report highest degree of confusion

Preferences of Consumers: Reasons for Decision(results from Germany)

Criteria Relevant for an Environmental Label

• Criteria for Organic products are perceived to be mainly the same as for a potential EU Ecolabel• Differences between evaluation small• Organic criteria (governmental regulation) relevant for both• Criteria cover sustainability topics.

• Differentiation between labels difficult• Might cause confusion when similar criteria are used• Relevant additional criteria for EU-Ecolabel might be:

• Environmental packaging• Environmentally friendly processing• Little waste.

Confusion Between EU Ecolabel and Organic Label

• Content: criteria for organic label and EU Ecolabel similar• Possible risk of confusion

• D: Wording: association with words „Bio“, „Eco“ and „Öko“• For „Bio“ and „Öko“ similar criteria concering organic agriculture

and production• For „Eco“ more associations with economic and energy (energy

efficiency etc.)• UK: Wording: association with words „Organic“, „Eco“ and

„Ecological“• For „organic“: criteria concering organic agriculture and production • For „Eco“ and „Ecological“: ecological and environmentally friendly

Confusion between EU Ecolabel and Organic label

I found the ranking very difficult

I can`t see any difference between the Organic label and the EU Ecolabel

The two labels confused me.

Having two labels on a product shows that it is a particularly good product.

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

19

38

27

30

28

32

30

50

UKGermany

5 point likert Scale: summarize „agree“ and „agree completely“ in percent

Preliminary Conclusion

• In general two labels are better than one • Effect of a label itself

• Correlation between knowledge of a label and preference decision

• Difficult to distinguish between EU Ecolabel and Organic label• Content criteria not clear – both labels cover sustainability

issues• Extensive information strategy necessary

Preliminary Conclusion

• Confusion might appear because of: • Content similarities• Wording:

• Associations with „Eco“ too far away from main content• Suggestion: Different wording (translation) for each country

• Trend: consumers tend to a standardised label (EU norm), but…

• Be careful with implementing EU Ecolabel• Interesting for processed products or topics like packaging

and organic products

Stakeholder Consultation

Otto Schmid and Hanna StolzFiBL - Research Institute of Organic Agriculture

Objectives

• To analyse the different views of main actors on the feasibility of the EU Ecolabel in the food, drink and feed sector

• To analyse the benefits and risks of introducing the EU Ecolabel

• To analyse possible implications of introducing the EU Ecolabel• In different countries and on EU level.

Impact Categories the Ecolabel should Cover

Waste and recycling systems Water usage

Water pollution Eco-toxicity and pesticides use

Greenhouse gas emission Biodiversity and wildlife

Non-renewable energy Human toxicity

Ozone layer depletion Soil erosion

Animal welfare Acidification

Minimum labour standards for workers Fair producer prices

Excursus: Low Coverage with Criteria Important to Consumers

Rank Actors Consumers

1. Waste and recycling systems Animal welfare

2. Water usage Chemical pesticides

3. Water pollution Few additives

4. Eco toxicity and pesticides No GMOs

5. Greenhouse gas emission Local production

Scenarios Preferred by Different Actors

ScenarioPro-

cessors

Processor umbrella / label org-anisation

Feed proc-essors /

retail

Retailers / whole-salers

Famers' asso-

ciationsPublic admin

Consumer NGO

Environ-mental NGO

1 no Ecolabel 14 14 2 5 3 10 4 8

2 for organic and conventional

9 1 0 3 0 7 1 1

3 specific products not covered by organic

4 3 1 3 0 5 0 1

4 specific focus areas 0 1 0 0 1 3 0 0

5 specific hotspots not covered

2 0 0 0 1 3 0 0

6 for organic products 0 0 0 2 2 5 3 2

9 for feed0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Arguments For Introducing the EU Ecolabel

• “Introduction of European ecolabelling criteria for food/drink and feed is a very useful step, but it is a very serious bottleneck to present such criteria under the same label ('eco'-label), because of the word ECO, which forms part of the current EU Ecolabel/logo.”

• “It would raise great interest among consumers who look for healthy and eco products.”

• “It could also cover a larger scope than organic label and promote new modes of production as for example integrated production.”

Arguments Against Introducing the EU Ecolabel

• “Applying the EU Ecolabel to food products would increase the risk of creating a duplicate of organic certification, as the EU Organic label already exists [….] misleading and confusing for consumers.”

• “The environmental impacts of food production are complex and cumulate throughout the various stages of food production. Conveying information on these different environmental impacts in a single, understandable label would be close to impossible ”

• “Contradiction with Council Regulation 834/2008 (organic food & feed), as "eco" denominations in food and feed are protected in that regulation.”

• “It is the usage of the food once purchased that largely determines its carbon footprint - stored chilled or frozen, microwaved vs. cooked. There is also no yet accurate method of doing lifecycle assessment.”

Stakeholder Workshop Results: Brussels 26 May 2011

• ≈ 20 persons participated, from different sectors/ organisations• retailers and their umbrella organisations • food and drink umbrella organisations• organic food processor and their umbrella organisation• IFOAM EU• certification bodies for ecolabelling• Consumer environmental organisation (BEUC, EEB)

representatives of EU/national public and bodies.• Discussion of scenarios and of special issues like food groups,

critical issues

Stakeholder Workshop Results - Products• Most attractive categories: products not well covered by labels, e.g.

ready meals (high degree of processing)• Other groups: meat and dairy (high environmental impact, would

include feed & animal welfare), tea, coffee & cocoa, fish & seafood (partly covered by MSC!)

• Least attractive categories: where strong presence of labels – organic/FairTrade coffee, tea & cocoa (consumer confusion); strong share of primary production

• BUT: ready meals difficult for criteria development• Critical issues: GMOs (not shared by all), “unhealthy products (not

shared by non-organic industry), non-organic products (organic point of view: risk of greenwashing)

Workshop Results - Scenarios• A high number of participants did not support the EU ecolabelling and

this for different reasons: • Confusion of consumer & competition with organic sector, • double labelling with overlapping criteria, • concerns about feasibility of credible overall assessment• additional costs for little benefits. • Legal problems with EU legislation & WTO /Codex Alimentarius

• Instead: inform consumers better and/or integration of more sustainability issues in the organic regulation.

• Some participants: Ecolabel for both organic and non-organic products. step-wise introduction and/or better consumer

• not covered: seafood, out of home eating

How to Make Scenarios More AcceptableNecessity of measures to make scenario more acceptable

1

No Eco-label

2

Non-org + org.

3

Select prod.

groups

4

Organic +

5

Endorse & extend

Non-org

6

EL for com-panies

7

B 2 B

Change of name „eco” in EL for food

- - -

Reduce consumer confusion with better information / data

Not rele

vant

Amend env. issues in EU Organic Regul.

- - -

Stronger public private partnership

Feasible & credible overall assessment

Re-adapt EL regulation for food - major partly partly partly major major

Conclusions from Actor-Survey and Workshop

• A significant group of actors and stakeholders are not in favour of an Ecolabel for food, drink and feed, but support the goal of improving environmental sustainability

• Others would like to introduce the Ecolabel whilst reducing problems/ conflicts• Some scenarios are not supported at all: only for feed, only crucial issues,.• Major problems and conflicts remain in most scenarios – with different degrees. • Measures needed in any case for all scenarios – for certain scenarios there is a

requirement to improve acceptance (hierarchy of measures: legal issues, communication, assessment system, implementation measures in public-private partnership)

• Broad range of sustainability impact categories expected by actors – feasibility of a credible overall assessment system (politically, technically) – avoid green-washing

Impacts and Preliminary Conclusions

Impacts of Introducing the EU Ecolabel

• Environment• Direct: significant reduction for certified producers but

issues of additionality and penetration of the label • Indirectly: overall shift of agricultural practices

knowledge / competence building better acceptance of regulations

• Business• More choice for supply chain actors• More costs for suppliers in case of double certification

Impacts of Introducing the EU Ecolabel

• Consumers• Harmonisation of labelling landscape for non-organic

products• Confusion regarding organic contents of EU Ecolabel• Confusion due to potential controversies

• Other labels• Perceived threat due to competition by new label• Hindering of organic market development due to confusion

Large dependency on how the EU Ecolabel is introduced!

Preliminary Conclusions on Feasibility

• Scientifically based criteria: • footprints: currently development of methodologies

(expected until end of 2012)• Best practices: many good examples exist

• Assessment:• Challenge to existing practice of EU Ecolabel

• Cost:• Significantly overall higher cost for applicants to be expected

• Legal issues:• Legal challenges regarding use of term “Eco” to be expected

Preliminary Conclusions on Feasibility

• Impacts: • Environment: improvement expected• Consumers: Information campaign important to reduce

confusion • Business: uptake by business is key for success • Other labels: Economic/reputational risk to be considered

Preliminary Conclusions on Basing the EU Ecolabel on Organic

Existing system of assessment High credibility with consumers No issue of confusing consumers

Currently, limited range of market share (1-7%) Scientific debate over environmental benefits for some

products & impacts Alternative option: develop Organic scheme directly

Preliminary Conclusions on Product Groups• The ideal product group to start with should have:

• a significant environmental impact/potential• significant processing• as little overlap with existing labels as possible• accessible to criteria development and assessment.

No ideal category exists

Preliminary Overall Conclusions

• Development of an EU Ecolabel for food, feed and drink is conceivable

• But significant challenges need to be tackled:• Output based criteria• Assessment system• Confusion of organic consumers• Conflict with existing labels• Stakeholder buy-in• Clarification of use “Eco”

Thank you!

O. Schmid H. Stolz

N. Stocke- A. Spiller brand

H. Sengst- N. Sprong schmid