Feasibility Study EU Ecolabel for Food and Feed Products Meeting of the EU Ecolabel Board Brussels,...
-
Upload
josephine-matthews -
Category
Documents
-
view
215 -
download
0
Transcript of Feasibility Study EU Ecolabel for Food and Feed Products Meeting of the EU Ecolabel Board Brussels,...
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