Feasibility Study EU Ecolabel for Food and Feed Products

1. Feasibility StudyEU Ecolabel for Food and Feed Products Meeting of the EU Ecolabel Board Brussels, 10th June2011

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

3. Introducing the Researchers O. Schmid H. Stolz N. Stocke- A. Spiller brand H. Sengst- N. Sprong schmid

4. Feasibility Study – Ecolabel Food and Feed Benefits / risks for the environment Interaction with existing labels Feasibility of criteria Confusion of consumers Benefits / risks for business Should an EU Ecolabel be introduced, and for which product categories ? Should Organic be required?

5. Approach

6. Impacts, Labels and Feasibility Helmut Sengstschmid Oakdene Hollins, UK

7. Environmental Impacts of Food, Feed and Drink Products • Meat, dairy & eggs highest impact on EIPRO indicators: • Review of LCAs: Significant impact of production methods

8. 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

9. 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

10. A Gap in the Landscape Multiple issue e.g. EU Organic MSC e.g. KRAV, Milieukeur ? Primary Production Life Cycle e.g. DolphinSafe • What’s missing is a Europe-wide multi-issue label covering the whole life cycle – the EU Ecolabel? Single issue

11. 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.

12. Feasibility of Development of Criteria – Pt.2 • Cost: • Development of methodology for criteria (e.g. footprints) • Marketing • Running cost: Assessment • Assessment 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.

13. 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

14. 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.

15. Consumer Survey Nina Stockebrand University of Göttingen

16. Objectives of the Consumer Survey – General • To analyseproduct preferences in order to assess the potential market relevance of the EU Ecolabel in comparison to other labels • To analysethe risk of confusionof organic labels and EU Ecolabel • To analysethe different potential influencing factors on these two main objectives

17. 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.

18. Overview of Selected Countries

19. Description of the Surveyed Population

20. Knowledge of Labels: Germany • Many labels are recognised, but specific meaning of labels is often unknown • EU Ecolabel mostly unknown

21. Knowledgeof Labels: UK • Labels arelessrecognised, but themeaningisoftenknown • EU Ecolabel is known very well

22. Attitude Towards Labels 5 pointlikertScale: summarize „agree“ and „agreecompletely“ in percent

23. Preferences of Consumers: the Methodology • Ranking experiment between products • Varying parameters: • Information text about EU Ecolabel vs. noinformation • Products • Labels: Organic label, EU-Ecolabel, no label

24. Preferences of Consumers: the UK Experiment

25. 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.

26. Preferences of Consumers: Reasons for Decision(results from Germany) • Repondents, who preferred both labels (n=57): • Two labels are better than one • They report less confusion • Respondents, who preferred organic label (n=37): • The label is known and trustworthy, one label is enough • Report similar confusion as no. 3 • Respondents, who preferred EU-Ecolabel (n=7): • EU standard; organiccovers not all criteria • Report similar confusion as no. 2

27. Preferences of Consumers: Reasons for Decision(results from Germany) • Respondents, who preferred no label (n=36): • Don't trust organic or don't buy organic; product might be cheaper • Think therearenodifferencesconcerningtrustworthiness, environmental friendliness, healthsafetyor taste • Don`tseedifferencesbetweenlabels • Report highest degree of confusion

28. 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 • Organiccriteria (governmentalregulation) relevant forboth • Criteria cover sustainability topics. • Differentiation between labels difficult • Mightcauseconfusionwhensimilarcriteriaareused • Relevant additional criteriafor EU-Ecolabelmightbe: • Environmental packaging • Environmentallyfriendlyprocessing • Little waste.

29. Confusion Between EU Ecolabel and Organic Label • Content: criteriafororganiclabeland EU Ecolabelsimilar • Possible risk of confusion • D: Wording: association with words „Bio“, „Eco“ and „Öko“ • For „Bio“ and „Öko“ similarcriteriaconceringorganicagricultureandproduction • For „Eco“ more associations with economic and energy (energy efficiency etc.) • UK: Wording: association with words „Organic“, „Eco“ and „Ecological“ • For „organic“: criteriaconceringorganicagricultureandproduction • For „Eco“ and „Ecological“: ecological and environmentally friendly

30. Confusionbetween EU EcolabelandOrganiclabel 5 pointlikertScale: summarize „agree“ and „agreecompletely“ in percent

31. PreliminaryConclusion • In generaltwolabelsarebetterthanone • Effectof a labelitself • Correlationbetweenknowledgeof a labelandpreferencedecision • Difficulttodistinguishbetween EU EcolabelandOrganiclabel • Content criteria not clear – bothlabels cover sustainabilityissues • Extensive informationstrategynecessary

32. PreliminaryConclusion • Confusionmightappearbecauseof: • Content similarities • Wording: • Associationswith „Eco“ toofarawayfrommaincontent • Suggestion: Different wording (translation) foreachcountry • Trend: consumerstendto a standardisedlabel (EU norm), but… • Becarefulwithimplementing EU Ecolabel • Interestingforprocessedproductsortopicslikepackagingandorganicproducts

33. Stakeholder Consultation Otto Schmid and Hanna Stolz FiBL - Research Institute of Organic Agriculture

34. 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.

35. Impact Categories the Ecolabel should Cover

36. Excursus: Low Coverage with Criteria Important to Consumers

37. Scenarios Preferred by Different Actors

38. 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.”

39. 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.”

40. 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

41. 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 difficultfor 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)

42. 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

43. How to Make Scenarios More Acceptable

44. 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

45. Impacts and Preliminary Conclusions

46. 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

47. 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 howthe EU Ecolabel is introduced!

48. 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

49. 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

50. 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