The European Union’s journey towards sustainable food systems is increasingly reliant on clear and reliable sustainability labelling. The recent Joint Research Centre (JRC) report provides a comprehensive analysis of the current state of sustainability labelling in the EU, shedding light on its role, challenges, and impact on consumer choices and market trends.
Creating supportive food environments is essential to promote sustainable diets in the EU. The Farm to Fork strategy, part of the European Green Deal, aims to drive the transition towards sustainable food systems. However, the lack of clear and reliable information on food products remains a significant barrier to consumer engagement. The JRC report highlights how sustainability labelling is a key tool to overcome this obstacle, although over-labelling and greenwashing practices risk undermining consumer trust.
The report seeks to provide a better understanding of the current state of sustainability labelling in the EU food market. The JRC analyzes the uptake and characteristics of existing sustainability labels, the social and environmental impacts they cover, and their overall reliability. The report also examines the life cycle stages involved in these labels, trends in their market uptake, and their influence on the environmental impacts of the food system according to scientific knowledge.
Mapping the Sustainability Labelling Landscape
A global approach has been adopted to map and evaluate sustainability labelling across the EU. This involved analyzing data from the Mintel Global New Products Database (GNPD), characterizing labels, and assessing their environmental and social impacts. The methodology also included a review of the scientific literature on the effects of sustainability labelling on the environmental impacts of the food system.
The report found that sustainability labelling is increasing in the EU, with around 20% of new food products launched in 2021 featuring such labels. However, this uptake varies significantly across Member States and product categories. Environmental claims dominate the labelling landscape, while social claims are less widespread.
The distribution of labelling adoption is clearly oriented towards certain labelling schemes. For example, the top 5 labelling schemes covering both environmental and social sustainability aspects accounted for 81% of category adoption. The Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) label, which covers only food packaging, was the most widely displayed in food product launches, contributing to 40% of adoptions among those covering both environmental and social sustainability.
Assessing Social and Environmental Impacts
The coverage of social aspects from sustainability labels is varied. The working conditions, dignity, and non-discrimination are among the most frequently addressed issues, while fair trade and community support are less present. Animal welfare labels, although not fully assessed, are also present on the market and focus on various aspects of welfare along the supply chain.
The environmental impacts covered by sustainability labels vary greatly. Labels commonly cover issues related to climate change, biodiversity loss, and land use, while impacts such as water use and soil health are less frequently addressed. The report highlights the need for more comprehensive coverage of environmental impacts to improve the effectiveness of sustainability labelling.
Implementation of sustainability labelling focuses on primary producers, with less involvement of other actors in the food chain. This finding is in line with the fact that primary production is the focal point of the total environmental impact for most food product groups. However, this concentration may limit the overall effectiveness of sustainability initiatives, highlighting the need for broader engagement across all life cycle stages.
Market Trends and Reliability Concerns
The market for products with sustainability labelling has grown steadily over the last decade, with significant increases in some Member States (NL, DE, BE, AT, EU, DK, SE) and in product categories such as hot drinks (coffee, tea), ready-to-drink products (coffee and tea products), and chocolate confectionery.
Labels like the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) and Rainforest Alliance dominate the market, reflecting a broader trend toward environmental certification in the food industry. However, the reliability of sustainability labels is essential to maintain consumer trust. The report notes that while some labels demonstrate high reliability, others are less robust, lacking transparency and comprehensive assessment methods. This variability underscores the importance of ongoing efforts to standardize sustainability claims and improve the credibility of labelling systems.
Effectiveness and Limitations
Scientific evidence on the effectiveness of sustainability labels in reducing environmental impacts are still limited. Although some positive effects have been observed, the overall impact of these labels remains uncertain. The main environmental impacts identified as relevant to the food system were climate change, biodiversity loss, land use, water use, and soil health.
The EFSA and ECDC’s One Health report calls for further research and improved methodologies to better assess the environmental benefits of sustainability labelling. The report acknowledges several limitations in its analysis, including the reliance on Mintel GNPD data, which only covers packaged products, and the difficulties in assessing the full range of environmental and social impacts of sustainability labels. These limits highlight the need for more comprehensive data and methodologies in future studies.
Harmonization and Standardization: The Path Forward
The results of the JRC report highlight the high proliferation, the heterogeneity, and inconsistencies of sustainability labels in the EU food market. The research highlights how the large amount of different labels, with a heterogeneous and non-systematic coverage of environmental impacts, does not address environmental aspects horizontally nor use a systematic life cycle approach. A similar image was found for labels that include the dimension of social sustainability.
The analysis also shows how actors in the food supply chain are not equally involved in the sustainability efforts required by labelling standards, thus generating compromises between food products and environmental and social issues. The labels are implemented and distributed unevenly across EU Member States, with a few market-leading sustainability labels, meaning that a few labels cover a large share of labelled products. Furthermore, labelling is applied to a few food product categories (such as cocoa, oil palm, coffee, soy, sugar cane, and fisheries), most of which are sourced outside the EU.
Sustainability labelling still has significant potential to promote positive changes in the EU food system. This could be done through harmonization and standardization of labels, increased transparency, and more robust evaluation methods. The upcoming EU Green Claims initiative represents “a weak step in this direction,” with the aim of improving the reliability and effectiveness of sustainability labelling in the food sector.
As the EU continues to navigate the evolving landscape of sustainability labelling, it is clear that more comprehensive, transparent, and harmonized approaches are needed to empower consumers and drive meaningful change in the food system. By addressing the gaps and inconsistencies identified in the JRC report, the EU can unlock the full potential of sustainability labelling to create a more sustainable, equitable, and transparent food future.
