Behind the Label: Eco Labels Special

By Pat Thomas, 01/04/07 Articles

Share this  

Ethical consumerism in the UK is currently worth £29.3 billion, yet 60 per cent of us feel we don’t have enough information to make an ethical decision. There is an ever-growing array of eco labels, but what do they tell us? Or fail to tell us? Pat Thomas explains

It used to be easy to shop. The bottom line of being a ‘canny consumer’ was a simple matter of getting the stuff you wanted at the best possible price. Getting more stuff for less money was the benchmark of success. Informed choice was simply about knowing which shops had the cheapest prices.

Today things have changed because we know that everything we buy, everything we use and dispose of leaves a mark on the world. The mark can be pollution caused by manufacture or disposal, the health consequences of using products that are made with and contain toxic chemicals, or the furthering of animal cruelty or human cruelty in the form of sweatshop labour to produce ever cheaper and more abundant goods. Or it can be a combination of all these and more.

Suddenly the benchmarks have become much more complex and the machinations we go through to make ‘good’ choices have given rise to the era of SWET – shoppers with ethics.

Instead of one bottom line many of us now negotiate at least three, for instance: Is it organic? Is it ethically traded? Is it cruelty free? At times exercising informed choice can feel like a full time occupation. And yet informed choices are more important than ever as shoppers become more interested in buying ecologically, ethically, morally and humanely.

There are shortcuts that can help. Eco labels such as the Soil Association logo, the Fairtrade mark and the European Energy Savings Label exist to provide a snapshot of the kinds of products we buy, how they were produced and what impact they have on the planet. In a busy world they make conscientious shopping easier, and as a result ethical consumerism is now a bona fide phenomenon.

According to the Co-operative Bank’s annual 2006 Ethical Consumerism Report, published in conjunction with The Future Foundation, ethical consumerism in the UK is currently worth £29.3 billion, for the first time overtaking the retail market for tobacco and alcohol which stood at £28.0 billion.

In 2005 ethical consumerism was up 11 per cent on the previous year. Over the same period, total UK household expenditure increased by just 1.4 per cent.

Spending on ethical food which includes organic products, Fairtrade goods and free-range eggs was up 18 per cent from £4.6 billion to £5.4 billion. Green home expenditure, which includes energy-efficient electrical appliances, green mortgage repayments, small renewables (such as micro-wind turbines) and green energy was up from £3.8 billion to £4.1 billion. Spending on personal products, such as humane cosmetics and eco-fashion, was up 5 per cent to £1.3 billion. Monies in ethical finance, which includes ethical banking and investments, stood at £11.6 billion, up from £10.6 billion last year.

More than anything else interest in ethical shopping indicates a break away trend from conventional consumerism, based solely on value, to one based values. The new consumerism is consumerism rooted in less tangible but equally important concepts such as connection, caring and community.

There is no doubt we have come a long way. But even as we celebrate the new greener consumer, complex problems have become apparent. Ethical shopping is still only a very small part of our total shopping. Overall it represents around 5 per cent of all the money we spend. Because ethical products are generally produced on a small scale it is difficult to foresee how much bigger the market can grow before it either reaches the full extent of its production capacity or begins to compromise its ethics for a bigger slice of the retail pie.

Assuming the market continues to grow there are will be other hurdles to face. For instance, surveys show that while most consumers fall into the SWET category, an astonishing 60 per cent feel they don’t have enough information on brands to make an ethical decision.

Eco labels, clearly, aren’t answering all the questions they need to. In part this is because the information on these labels has, to an alarming extent, been co-opted as a marketing tool.

It can be difficult to sum up the ethical pedigree of a product in a single label. But what an eco label can do is serve as a way to differentiate ethical products in such a way as to make them seem more desirable, aspirational and luxurious than other products in the marketplace. Increasingly this is how eco labels are being used. And when words like organic, ethical, cruelty free become sales and marketing tools, they quickly lose their meaning and we can end up buying them for all the wrong reasons. In this sort of marketplace it takes a mighty effort on the part of the consumer to keep looking for the true meaning behind such labels.

The whole issue of labels has become complex in part as an outgrowth of the way we have learned to produce goods (by strangers in far away countries) and shop for them (disconnected from the producer and the production process). If you go to a farmers’ market and you buy locally produced goods there is no need for complex labels. If you are buying what you need instead of whatever you want, you automatically buy less and therefore are seamlessly making a smaller impact in terms of pollution and waste.

But if you purchase a product in the global supermarket and it says local or organic or Fairtrade – what does that mean? Does it mean the same thing in every supermarket? Would it mean the same thing in Whole Foods, for instance, as it would in Tesco?

These are important questions since some eco-labelled products are starting to be made by or taken over by mainstream manufacturers and supermarkets. There is a benefit to this. It can bring prices down and improve the variety and availability of products. The worry, however, is that there are no guarantees that your affordable  eco-labelled product is made by an ethical company. With multinationals, there is no guarantee that the fact that they produce some ethical products means that they have eschewed their involvement in unethical practices such as mistreating animals or indigenous people, or that they have abandoned monoculture farming for more sustainable methods.

There is now a bewildering array of eco labels to help us shop. But how helpful and informative are they, really? What do they tell us? What do they fail to tell us? And whom, ultimately, do they serve? Most importantly how can we begin to use labels to change the way we shop to such a degree that manufacturers are left in no doubt that ethical shopping is not a luxury niche market, or a fad, but the wave of the future?

Arguably the first step is to get to grips with what the labels actually mean…

The Labels 

ORGANIC

Buying organic ensures you are buying foods produced without synthetic pesticides or fertilizers, antibiotics, hormones, genetic engineering or radiation. Organic farming minimises damage to the environment and wildlife. If it is home grown you are also getting fresh food, with a higher nutrient value. As faith in the quality and safety of conventionally produced food has declined, the popularity of organic food has risen dramatically.

All organic food must meet a common set of minimum standards, as defined by the EU. Each EU member state has a national control body; the United Kingdom Register of Organic Food Standards (UKROFS) regulates the activities of six UK Certification Bodies in the UK. The oldest and largest of these, the Soil Association founded in 1946, currently undertakes 80 per cent of all certification in the UK and is arguably the organic label most trusted by consumers.

The regulations are the same for all organic certification bodies, however, this does not prevent some, for instance the Soil Association and Demeter, from demanding higher than minimum standards, and inspecting organic producers against these.

As a label and a concept ‘organic’ has hit a string of problems recently. Ideally organic food should be locally produced, but in the UK this is by no means a given; around 56 per cent of all organic food sold here is imported. Likewise organic food shunted through conventional supermarket systems in can be stored for extended amounts of time before being put on the shelf, and may therefore be less nutritious. The Soil Association has recently announced its intention to withdraw certification from foods that are imported into the UK in a bid to address the problem of organic air miles.

In order to cash in on a growing and potentially lucrative market many large corporations have either bought up small organic producers or begun producing and selling own brand begun selling organic food. These corporations, which deal in high volume goods, have exploited loopholes in the standards that, for example, allow them to raise dairy cows and chickens in confinement.

In the US for example, producers only need to give animals “access” to outdoors; don’t actually have to let them go out. Large producers are also allowed to feed animals them on less than natural diets (such as prepared pellets) and use massive acreages to plant crops (thus encouraging monoculture). Things are better in the UK, but, according to Viva!, the only organisation to set markedly higher standards for animal welfare is the Soil Association.

As most shoppers will also know there is also a great deal of organic junk/convenience food on sale most of it prepared in exactly the same nutrient destroying way as conventional convenience food.

Finally organic standards do not address the issue of worker welfare. Studies from the US, for instance, show that the rights of workers on organic farms are often as abused as those on conventional farms. 

What the label guarantees

• Food produced to a minimum European organic standard
• Use of synthetic pesticides or fertilizers severely restricted
• Better for the environment
• Maintains soil fertility
• Use of antibiotics restricted
• No growth hormones
• No GM crops or animal feed
• No irradiation
• Traceability
• Fresher food (if produced locally)
• More nutritious food (if fresh)

What it doesn’t guarantee

• Locally grown/produced
• Consistent standards between certifying bodies
• No animal cruelty
• Animals reared on natural diets
• Low air miles
• Fresh food
• Healthy, nutrient dense food
• Concern for worker welfare
• Food from small, well-managed farms
• Your money doesn’t go into the hands of large, unethical corporations (e.g. Cadbury/Green & Blacks)
• Minimal packaging

The Ecologist Recommends

Fresh, locally produced organic food is a joy buy and eat and there is no question that in the main organic standards for produce, meat and dairy are amongst the highest available.

You still have to read the label carefully though. Generally speaking organic food labelling falls into one of two categories. Category 1 Organic products contain a minimum of 95 per cent organic ingredients by weight.  Most organic products on sale in the UK fall into this category. Category 2 Special Emphasis products contain 70-95 per cent organic ingredients by weight. These products (e.g. tomato ketchup) can be labelled ‘Made with Organic Ingredients’. These percentages reflect the fact that some ingredients need not be or cannot be organic (e.g. water, yeast and salt).

The easiest way to tell if a UK manufactured product is organic is to look for the European Certifying Authority, or ECA, code on the packaging. The UK code numbers are: UK2 – Organic Farmers & Growers (OF&G) UK3 – Scottish Organic Producers Association (SOPA) UK4 – Organic Food Federation (OFF) UK5 – Soil Association Certification (SA Cert) UK6 – Demeter / Bio-Dynamic Agriculture Association (BDAA) UK7 – Irish Organic Farmers & Growers Association (IOFGA).

In market stalls or where loose produce is sold the retailer should have on display a certificate from the accrediting body, and a trading schedule that lists which products on the stall are certified organic.

Another consideration is that these days the organic label can also be found on a variety of non-food items such as health and beauty products, textiles, timber products and gardening supplies. Some critics argue the standards for these types of manufactured products are of necessity less ‘pure’ than those for food items and that in trying to regulate such products certifying bodies are diluting their original purpose and the meaning of the organic label.

FAIRTRADE

The Fairtrade mark can now be found on a range of products including coffee, banana, sugar, tea, jeans, jewellery, footballs and flowers. At heart fair trade is a strategy for poverty alleviation. Its purpose is to create opportunities for producers in the developing world who have been economically disadvantaged or marginalized by the conventional trading system and ensure these individuals receive a fair price for their goods and support and education for sustainable farming practices. Fairtrade labelling initiatives throughout the globe operate under the auspices of the Fairtrade Labelling Organization Initiative (FLO).

For all the good it does there are also unresolved issues. Fairtrade is not the same as organic, though many farmers in the scheme do use traditional, and therefore organic and sustainable techniques. Some Fairtrade labels volunteer information on how the product (such as coffee or chocolate) was grown organically to help consumers decide, thought this is not required.

There is also the nagging problem of scale. Producers of Fairtrade products are under increasing pressure to enter the mainstream market and many have turned to supermarkets help increase sales and thus maximise the good that selling their product is doing. Increasingly, licenses are being granted to supermarkets to develop their own Fairtrade brands. Yet it could be argued that by courting the big brands and supermarkets, in this way they are also strengthening the very companies that are undermining the bargaining power of producers.

Also big companies like McDonalds now serve Fairtrade coffee in their US restaurants; the company’s European restaurants are due to follow suit later this year. Nestlé, which for years has derided Fairtrade for violating the principles of “free trade”, was given Fairtrade certification for its Partners’ Blend coffee in October 2005.

A Fairtrade mark will tell a consumer whether a given commodity is fairly traded or not, but it does not guarantee fair trade throughout the supply chain. For instance a t-shirt could be made with Fairtrade cotton, but still sewn in a sweat-shop. Neither does it help consumers distinguish between companies that are entirely committed to fair trade and those, like Nestlé, that have simply added a Fairtrade product to their range. This is one driving force behind the Fair Trade Organization label launched in 2004 by the major fair trade certification body, the International Federation for Alternative Trade (IFAT). The FTO Mark is given to organisations that operate according to fair trade principles as opposed to products.

Organisations carrying this logo practice fair trade principles from the ground up. Choosing products that bear this mark, is in some ways a more reliable way of shopping ethically since it supports organisations that are committed to changing the way goods are produced.

Finally Fairtrade while Fairtrade brings us exotic goods from far away it’s worth asking why are there are no domestic Fairtrade label for fruits and veggies, milk, cheese and beef?  The Fairtrade Foundation is adamant that it “recognises that many farmers in the UK face similar issues as farmers elsewhere.” While the foundation agrees that the principles behind fair trade may provide useful insight into the debate on improving the situation for UK producers, it is not convinced “that a labelling scheme is the right solution to the problems affecting UK farmers. A plethora of similar sounding labelling initiatives could result in confusion for consumers and undermine both the local cause and the global situation we care so deeply about.”

Others disagree and in Mexico the first domestic fair trade label, Comercio Justo, was launched in 2001. In more developed countries progress towards domestic fair trade labels is slow largely because intensive agricultural practices are not transparent or sustainable enough to qualify for a fair trade certification.

What the label guarantees

• Farmers get a fair and stable price for their products
• Extra income for farmers and estate workers to improve their lives.
• A greater respect for the environment
• Small farmers a stronger position in world markets
• A closer link between consumers and producers

What it doesn’t guarantee

• Lower food miles
• Locally produced
• Ethical treatment of animals
• A better deal for farmers in the developed world
• Organic
• Cruelty free
• Minimally packaged
• Fairtrade throughout the finished product’s supply chain 

 The Ecologist Recommends

The Fairtrade mark allows us to care at a distance for some of the world’s poorest people. It also allows us to continue to eat, guilt free, the exotic goods such as coffee, chocolate and bananas, which we cannot grow for ourselves here in the UK. But without other qualifications such as ‘organic’ the label simply doesn’t go far enough to protect both people and planet. Although is not welcome advice, considering scaling down your purchases of exotic goods may be of more general use to the environment.

CONSERVATION GRADE

An independently-audited UK-based agricultural system, pioneered by cereal manufacturers Jordans that aims to increase the number of wildlife species on farming land, without compromising farming sustainability. While indicative of a higher quality than bog-standard cereals, conservation grade is not the same as organic though Jordans say cereals produced in this way they are generally “about 90 per cent organic”.

The label emerged in response to the steep post WWII decline in many species and their habitats. As domestic food production increased during the war farmers ploughed under many native trees and hedgerows. The negative effects of this action are still evident the Government has recently acknowledged that we must re-dress the balance before many plant, bird and animal species disappear from our landscapes altogether.

The benefits to the land are a reported five times increase in wildlife. To consumers there is the (albeit subjective) allure of better tasting foods produced in healthier soil as well as fewer pesticide residues since natural pest predators such as spiders and beetles can thrive and protect the crops ‘naturally’. Some producers such as Jordans cereals and Nairns oatcakes also produce their finished products without artificial additives, however this is voluntary and not a requirement of Conservation Grade certification.

What the label guarantees

• Farmers must set aside 10 per cent of their land to create habitats for wildflowers, birds, insects and small animals.
• Fewer pesticides are used
• Produced in the UK

What it doesn’t guarantee

• Organic
• Pesticide free
• Minimally packaged

The Ecologist recommends

The Conservation Grade label is of very limited use to anyone wishing to buy food that has been ethically produced from farm to field.

MARINE STEWARDSHIP COUNCIL

The Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) began in 1997 as a joint initiative between the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) and Unilever, a multinational company and one of the world’s largest buyers of fish. Unilever and WWF are no longer on the MSC management board. MSC is officially an independently run non-profit organization with the bulk of its funding coming from charitable trusts and foundations and government agencies, though Unilever continues to provide funds as well.

The MSC labelling programme is based on the following general principles, the aim of which is to promote sustainable fisheries:

• The maintenance and re-establishment of healthy populations of targeted species;
• The maintenance of the integrity of ecosystems;
• The development and maintenance of effective fisheries management systems, taking into account all relevant biological, technological, economic, social, environmental and commercial aspects;
• Compliance with relevant local and national local laws and standards and international understandings and agreements.

The assessment and testing of these criteria, and the awarding of the logo, are left to individual MSC-accredited certifying organisations.

The MSC has been criticized for not applying these standards evenly. It has also come under fire for its inability to certify fisheries in developing countries to the MSC standards and its lack of attention to labour problems in the fishing industry. To remedy the first concern the WWF is now working with the MSC in community based certification for developing countries, but the issue of fair labour practices remains unresolved.

Further, allegations that its standards are not applied evenly mean the label may only be of limited use to ethical shoppers. In some instances it may be better to go a local fishmonger and learn to ask questions about where the fish came from and how it was caught – and refuse to buy until you get answers you desire.

What the label guarantees

• Sustainably managed fisheries
• Efforts toward re-establishing endangered species
• Best practice in catching fish
• Respect of the marine environment

What it doesn’t guarantee

• Only applies to marine fisheries activities up to, but not beyond, the point at which the fish are landed
• Applies only to wildcapture fisheries (including, but not limited to shellfish, crustaceans and cephalopods).  Aquaculture and the harvest of other species are not currently included
• Allocation of quotas and access to marine resources are not considered
• Living wage/fair working conditions for fishermen
• Fair access to certification for small scale fishermen
• Funding by Unilever and others opens programme up to potential conflicts of interest.

The Ecologist recommends

The MSC label may be of limited use to most consumers, especially if standards are not applied evenly. If you are a fish eater, there is no substitute for asking questions of your fishmonger about how and where the fish was caught. You can also easily learn which varieties of fish sustainable and which are not. The Marine Conservation Society produces a Good Fish Guide (www.fishonline.org), that can help.

FSC

One of the major causes of rainforest destruction and biodiversity loss in tropical zones is the illegal logging of hardwoods such as teak. The Forest Stewardship Council (FSC), label, broadly speaking, exists to address this by promoting environmentally appropriate, socially beneficial and economically viable management of the world’s forests.

Founded in 1993, is an international accrediting organisation that has developed standards to certify wood harvested from “well-managed” forests and wood products and paper made from FSC certified wood.

FSC accreditation certifies wood against 10 basic criteria that include environmental, social and economic impacts of the forest industry. Biodiversity is encouraged and the legal and customary rights of indigenous peoples to own, use and manage their lands is recognised respected. Workers on FSC schemes have the right to organise.

Because the principles of the scheme are very general, loopholes can be exploited. For instance, although genetic engineering is not allowed, clearcutting and use of chemicals including herbicides and preservation of old growth forests are only addressed in a general way without specific requirements.

Labels on FSC certified products sometimes include a statement regarding the percentage of FSC wood in the product. However, the FSC label standards have shifted since the program began. For example, prior to February 2000, chip and fibre products had to contain at least 70 per cent FSC-certified wood to qualify for the label. In February 2000, the minimum dropped to 30 per cent only to be raised again in 2005 to 50 per cent. Drastic changes to standards like this can mislead consumers.

Recently it has come to light that criteria are not applied evenly across the board and there are concerns that the lines between forests and plantations are too blurred, potentially allowing natural forests to be cleared for plantations. The FSC counters that responsibly managed tree plantations ultimately reduce the pressure on natural forests.

But last year organisations from eight different countries requested the FSC withdraw certificates awarded to a number of large-scale tree plantations companies in Brazil, Colombia, Chile, Ecuador, Ireland, South Africa, Spain and Uruguay. The organisations said the certifications violated the FSC’s mandate of promoting “environmentally appropriate, socially beneficial, and economically viable management of the world’s forests.”

What the label guarantees

• Wood and paper products are derived from forests that meet FSC criteria
• No GM trees
• Rights of indigenous people and workers respected
• Efforts to preserve biodiversity

What the label can’t guarantee

• Standards are applied evenly to all producers
• Wood is from natural forests not plantations
• The finished product is made from 100 per cent sustainable wood
• Organic production
• Chemical free

The Ecologist recommends

A recent comparison of forestry certification programmes concluded that FSC is probably still the best of the existing labels. The Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification Schemes (PEFC) standard, for instance, was found to allow unsustainable logging in ancient forest areas and other ecologically valuable ecosystems, and it standards were deemed very low and varied considerably from country to country. Stakeholder representation from environmental organisations and indigenous peoples groups is also inadequate. Moreover the PEFC scheme was solely developed and is dominated by businesses with a vested interest in the forest sector whereas the FSC was developed by a mixture of environmental, business and local groups.

But labels mean nothing unless they are used properly. The UK is the world’s third largest importer of illegal timber. Using wood from unsustainable forests has unavoidable implications for climate change.

Surveys show that sales staff in department stores and DIY shops are woefully ill informed about the source of their furniture and wood products and sell mostly on price and brand names. Many wood products, even those certified by the FSC, carry no label that would help consumers make decisions.

When buying wood products in particular beware of cheap goods that are not meant to last. A good wood product should last a lifetime and therefore not waste valuable forests.  Consider also natural products that are wood-free. Some furniture manufacturers are taking wood out of their product lines altogether. Instead they are using wood board made from post-agricultural or post-industrial recyclate such as wheatsraw, bamboo, miscanthus and hemp stalks from farms or extruded plastic and wood fibre mixtures from recycled cosmetics bottles and sawdust.
 

EUROPEAN ECOLABEL

The new European Ecolabel is a Europe-wide label for non-food products including copy paper, dishwashing detergents, indoor paints and varnishes, hard floor coverings, textiles, televisions, and even tourist accommodation. It covers a variety of environmental impacts such as production energy use, waste generation, recyclability – across the whole life cycle of the product.

Products must be independently certified and meet strict criteria for all the main environmental impacts.  In the UK the scheme is administered by DEFRA and includes a flower label which can be found on toilet tissue, kitchen rolls, paints and clothing. Some countries have national eco-label schemes such as the Nordic Swan and the Blue Angel in Germany.

What the label guarantees

• Traceability
• Low environmental impact in manufacture, use and disposal

What it doesn’t guarantee

• Organic
• Low air miles
• Chemical free

The Ecologist recommends

Because it aims to account for the entire life cycle of the a product, goods carrying this label will be significantly ‘greener’ than most other similar products in the range and that it will consume less energy, pollute less, or create less waste when it is disposed of.

EUROPEAN ENERGY LABEL/ENERGY STAR

All European manufacturers and retailers must tell you about the energy efficiency of household ‘white goods’ such as fridges, freezers, washing machines, tumble driers, dishwashers, air conditioners, ovens and lightbulbs. The European Energy Label is certified by the Energy Savings Trust (EST), in conjunction with industry and the government. On these labels products are rated form ‘A’ to ‘G’ with ‘A’ being the most efficient.

Although the label rates products from A to G in 1999 with the advent of new minimum energy efficiency standards, manufacturers, importers and retailers were not allowed to sell cold appliances belonging to energy groups D through This left only three energy efficiency groups and led, some critics say to models with poor performance getting higher than they deserved ratings. In 2004 the most efficient fridges and freezers were given an additional star rating of ‘A+’ and ‘A++’ to differentiate them from less efficient A rated models.

Certification is left to individuals manufacturers and independent analyses have revealed a tendency for some manufacturers to overestimate the energy efficiency of their products leading to a false classification of some appliances.

Energy efficiency is a relative term – in the context of the European Energy Label, it is not about absolute energy use but is defined as the demand for energy per unit of ‘service’, for instance the volume of a refrigerator or the weight of clothes washed. As the equipment gets larger, it is easier to achieve a high level of energy efficiency. Under this rating system a small fridge may appear to be less energy efficient than a larger, more expensive model.

Another label, the Energy Star, which originated in the US, means that the energy consumption of an appliance is below an agreed level in standby-mode. The criteria for this agreed level varies from product to product. In the UK the Energy Star is most likely to be found on TVs and computer monitors, printers and fax machines. Within the EU Energy Star is a voluntary labelling scheme and its use is controlled by an agreement between the USA and the European community. See www.energystar.gov for details.

Most products use very little energy – between 0.5 and 12 watts per hour – in standby. But the sheer number of electronic goods we have in our homes now means that standby is a significant draw on energy resources and a contributor to global CO2 emissions. Critics argue that Energy star simply doe not go far enough and that newer initiatives such as the International Energy Agency’s (IEA) proposed ‘1 Watt Plan’ may go further than the Energy Star by encouraging manufacturers to reduce the standby draw of their appliances to just one watt. So far only Australia and Korea have formally adopted the plan.

It is, of course, useful to know how energy efficient your appliances are and any potential problems with such labels may not lie in big goods like fridges, which we purchase occasionally, but in our increasing reliance on all kinds of electrical goods. Research carried out by the EST shows that Britons increasingly regard electrical and electronic items such as mobile phones and electric toothbrushes as indispensable.

Newer appliances are generally more efficient than old ones; so in principle, purchasing new energy efficient goods can reduce energy consumption. However many goods are not bought as replacements, but as additions to the household. What is more replacing old electrical equipment with new doesn’t address the problem of how to recycle older equipment. Our love affair with electrical gadgets means the amount of electricity we use is set to double in the next five years. 

What the label guarantees

• Energy consumption during use will be at or below an agreed European standard

What it doesn’t guarantee

• Item not made by energy intensive process
• Easily recyclable
• Not made with toxic or persistent substances (this may be covered by legislation – CHECK)
• How to run the machine efficiently (no context)
• Guarantee of how long the item will last
• Little actual distinction between energy groups

The Ecologist recommends

The policy for energy efficiency white goods is due to be revised again in 2008 possibly to include the removal of current B rated appliances form the marketplace. This means that all white goods (with the exception of freezer chests) will be ‘A’ rated or above and would seem to make a nonsense of any comparative power of the label. In part the European Energy Label was devised to encourage consumers to buy newer goods more often. Refrigerators, for example, are designed to last 15 years or so and should not be treated as impulse buys. Likewise it may be time for us to end our love affair with all things electric – such as toothbrushes, shavers, and kitchen gadgets of every conceivable purpose. The planet simply cannot support the increased energy demands these place no it.

UK FUEL ECONOMY LABEL

This labelling scheme, introduced in October 2001, can be found on all new cars. Its purpose is to encourage reduced fuel consumption and carbon emissions in the transport sector. The label indicates how much carbon dioxide a car emits. It also gives estimated fuel costs for 12,000 miles and the vehicle excise duty for 12 months so car buyers can see how much these will cost before they buy.

This scheme which mirrors the European Energy label’s A to G style rating was introduced voluntarily in July 2005 by the car industry under the auspices of the Low Carbon Vehicle Partnership (CVP), which was set up with Government funding.

Although it looks like the European Energy Label the similarity ends there. The Fuel Economy Label, for instance, does not indicate any particular criteria that the car has been subjected to. Critics argue the label puts the onus on the car buyer to choose a low emissions vehicle instead of on the automotive industry to improve CO2 emissions across the board.

As of June 2006 a monitoring study conducted Low CVP found the level of consumer awareness amongst people who have recently bought or are about to buy a car was low. Only a third of those surveyed knew what the label was for. Likewise the level of participation amongst car dealers is low. There is no particular incentive for sales staff to promote fuel-efficient models, thus full compliance (labels displayed on all cars in showrooms) was only 55 per cent. If around half of car dealers don’t even display the label at all how can consumers make good choices?

It remains to be seen whether this label will translate into increased sales of cars with lower carbon emissions.

What the label guarantees

• Nothing – it only provides information for comparison purposes

What it doesn’t guarantee

• Low levels of other global warming gas emissions
• Low levels or particulate matter emitted during use
• Vehicle was produced in an environmentally friendly manufacturing process.
• Percentage of the vehicle that is readily recyclable
• Vehicle producer is an ethical company
• Workers rights

The Ecologist recommends

As much as we would like to see more people breaking their dependence on cars, we recognise that some people do need their cars. However before you consider buying a new car ask yourself if the financial cost of running a car is really worth it. Calculations by the AA and RAC suggest that the true cost of keeping a car in the UK, including tax, fuel, insurance, repairs, etc, is around 35p a mile, or  £1.75 – not including parking and possible congestion charges – for a five mile journey into London. The same five-mile journey by public transport would cost around £1.70.

If you still want to buy downgrade, rather than upgrade and buy the most fuel-efficient car you can afford. Finally buy a car that you intend to keep for years and keep it well looked after. Replacing cars often is wasteful – around 25 per cent of the environmental pollution and 20 per cent of a car’s lifetime energy expenditure occurs during manufacture

CONFIDENCE IN TEXTILES

Launched in 1992 the label indicates that the textile has been extensively tested for the presence of harmful chemicals. Fabrics carrying this logo have been subjected to laboratory tests based on international test standards and other recognised testing procedures. These also include simulation tests, which take into account all possible ways by which harmful substances could be absorbed into the human body (orally, via the skin, by inhalation).

The system encompasses three basic labels:

• Oeko-Tex standard 100 – tests for harmful substances that are prohibited or regulated by law, chemicals which are known to be harmful to health.
• OekoTex standard 1000 – Awarded to companies that use environmentally friendly manufacturing processes in addition to having at least 30 per cent of total production is already certified under Oeko-Tex Standard 100.
• Oeko-tex standard 100plus – Awarded to companies and their products that meet both the above criteria.

What the label guarantees

• Absence of harmful chemicals in finished product
• Some worker welfare issues addressed (e.g. healthy working conditions)
• Products produced using low impact processes (Oeko-Tex 1000 standard only)

What it doesn’t guarantee

• Worker welfare (e.g. fair wages)
• Organic textiles
• Sustainable farming practices
• Natural fibres

The Ecologist recommends

Textiles carrying this label may be free from harmful chemicals but this does not guarantee an ethical supply chain. They may still, for instance have been made in sweatshops.

FREEDOM FOOD

Freedom Food was set up in 1994 by the RSPCA as the first farm assurance scheme to concentrate primarily on animal welfare. The Freedom Food mark found on eggs, dairy, meat, poultry and salmon products means the animals involved have been reared, handled, transported and slaughtered to standards devised and monitored by the RSPCA.

The standards apply to both indoor and outdoor farming methods and are broadly based on the Five Freedoms as defined by the Farm Animal Welfare Council (FAWC), namely:

• Freedom from hunger and thirst
• Freedom from discomfort
• Freedom from pain, injury or disease
• Freedom to express normal behaviour
• Freedom from fear and distress

These ‘freedoms’ however, are aspirational rather than strict requirements. Freedom Food certification won’t be withheld if these aspirations are not met to the letter. This was amply illustrated a few years ago when reports of Freedom Foods pigs and chickens being raised in cramped conditions, and subjected to tail docking (in pigs) and beak trimming (in chickens) came to light.

According to Viva! the Freedom Food animal welfare standards fall well short the Soil Association’s standards and are usually little better than the legal minimum requirements. The RSPCA say their welfare standards are deliberately practical and achievable thus they can be implemented on both large- and small-scale farms, and cover indoor and outdoor systems.

What the label guarantees

• Animal welfare standards may, in some cases, be above minimum legal requirements
• For egg production, the welfare standards prohibit the use of battery cages for hens.

What it doesn’t guarantee

• Free range animals
• Outdoor access for all animals
• High environmental standards on farms
• No mutilations (tail docking and beak trimming)
• Better than government minimum standards for animal welfare
• Animals fed natural diets
• Organically reared

The Ecologist recommends

While the Freedom Food Label does guarantee a higher level of human treatment of animals, it does little to challenge the orthodoxy of intensive farming and because they focus simply on basic animal welfare, do nothing to address the environmental impacts of this kind of farming.

LEAF MARQUE

Linking Environment and Farming (LEAF) is a relatively new higher-level

environmental assurance scheme. It is an industry funded certification scheme with standards aimed at encouraging efficient farming systems that look after the land and the rural community. Its underlying objective is to develop standards that are above baseline levels but are not aiming at meeting organic standards.

The standards are based what LEAF regards as a common-sense approach to farming, combining modern technology with basic principles of good farming practice. It covers areas such as soil management and crop nutrition, pesticide usage, pollution control, waste management, water and energy efficiency and the protection of wildlife and landscape.

What the label guarantees

• Farms meet a minimum standard for environmental care

What it doesn’t guarantee

• Organic
• Small scale
• No GM
• Animals not intensively reared
• Locally/UK produced

The Ecologist recommends

The Leaf Marque cannot be reliably used to judge the superior ethical or environmental criteria of any food.

RED TRACTOR

The Red Tractor logo, which is the British Farm Standard trademark, is the food industry’s attempt to get in on the green labelling act. It was launched in 2000 ostensibly to reassure consumers that a meat, vegetable, fruit, flour, sugar and dairy products have been produced to independently inspected [welfare, environmental, and hygiene] standards.

Use of the logo is granted by Assured Food Standards, an agribusiness umbrella group representing the interests of the National Farmers union, the Meat and Livestock Commission, Dairy UK and the British Retail Consortium. In 2005 the British flag was added to the logo to denote products that have been “produced, processed and packed in the UK”.

Compassion in World farming has criticised the scheme’s animal welfare standards saying that in real terms it gives few assurances that animals are treated any better than the bare minimum legal guidelines – and in some cases even these don’t apply. Likewise many of the protocols that farmers are expected to follow are expressed as guidelines rather than requirements. The Red Tractor scheme offers consumers very little in terms of green credentials. Friends of the Earth does not believe that, as it currently stands, the Red Tractor scheme provides any real assurance that the food is produced to any higher standard than other food on shop shelves. In fact, it may even be produced to lower standards.

What the label guarantees

• Food produced to a minimum UK/European standard.

What the label can’t guarantee

• Not intensively reared
• Animals treated well, given outdoor access,
• No mutilations
• No GM feed or crops
• Absence of growth promoters
• Locally or UK produced
• Organic

The Ecologist recommends

The Red Tractor label cannot be reliably used to judge the superior ethical or environmental criteria of any British food.

MOBILUS LOOP

This widely used label can indicate both recycled content and that the product is recyclable.

There is a lot of confusion over the definitions of recycled products in particular, and there is currently no standardised label or symbol used to denote recycled content. When a product is described as “recycled”, this means that it contains some material that has been recovered or reprocessed. This does not necessarily mean that it is made from 100 per cent recycled material, but could contain any proportion of recycled and virgin material. Ideally the mobilus loop should indicate what percentage of the products is made from recycled material, but this is by no applied universally.

The mobilus loop has different implications for different types of products. For instance, when glass, paper and cans are recycled, they become similar products that can be used and recycled over and over again. Most plastics however can only be usefully recycled once. Most bottles and jugs don’t become food and beverage containers again. Instead, soda bottles might become carpet or stuffing for sleeping bags. Milk jugs might end up as plastic building materials, recycling bins, and toys.

Therefore recycling only delays rather than avoids plastics entry into the waste stream.

Currently only about 3.5 per cent of all plastics generated is recycled compared to 34 per cent of paper, 22 per cent of glass and 30 per cent of metals. As things stand today, recycling only minimally reduces the amount of virgin resources used to make plastics. Critics also claim that the environmental impact of the regeneration process for plastic is quite high in terms of energy use and hazardous by-products.

The point to remember about recycling labels is that the presence of what appears to be a recycling symbol does not necessarily means that the product will be accepted locally. Producers are increasingly manufacturing their goods for a European or worldwide market and are obliged to include a variety of symbols some of which are not for the benefit of the consumer but for the waste handling and disposal industry.

What the label guarantees

• Nothing – the product might be made from recycled material or it may simply be appropriate for recycling 

What it doesn’t guarantee

• Product is made from 100 per cent recycled material
• Product contains a standardised minimum of recycled material
• The product/packaging has a low environmental impact
• The product is free from harmful chemicals

The Ecologist recommends

Recycling papers, glass and metal, materials that are easily recycled more than once, saves far more energy and resources than are saved with plastics recycling. The most efficient thing consumers can do to reduce waste is to buy less, reuse where possible and refuse to buy over-packaged goods.

Sidebar: How to shop ethically

Reading and understanding labels is the first step in buying ethically.  Labels provide a kind of shorthand for our decision making process. Having decided what is and is not an ethical product, you can exercise your desire to shop ethically in many ways.

Support progressive companies. Spend your cash on ethical product be they fair trade, organic, or cruelty free. This kind of purchasing encourages innovation.

Do not support unethical businesses.  Refusing to buy products produced in a ways that is unsustainable or unethical such as battery eggs or big cars made by companies who are involved with unethical business practices. This includes not just day to day goods, but also products like pensions and credit cards. Avoid those that ignore social and environmental consequences of their actions.

Use the power of boycott. If you disagree with the ethics of a company boycott all their products. Nestle boycott for example is about breastmilk substitutes and their damaging effect on infant health, but encompasses products as diverse as L’Oreal cosmetics and the Body shop, Perrier, Cross and Blackwell and Lyons Maid foods.

Big picture purchasing. Shop by using a combination of all three approaches. Shopping this way is unlikely to be brand loyal, but instead shops by the content of the goods, buys more than just one kind of label and sends a powerful message to retailers about what is and is not acceptable in a new shopping climate.

Sidebar: Final thoughts – ethical shopping versus ethical living

So, can you shop to save the world? Yes. But also no.

Yes because consumption plays an increasingly important role in many people’s social and political lives. For a variety of reasons the things we buy have become an extension of ourselves, an expression of who we are. I shop therefore I am.

While ethical shopping used to be the preserve of a few committed activists, it is now a part of the mainstream. Intriguingly the numbers of ethical or political consumers, that is, people who make consumption choices informed by values and concerns, is increasing even as faith and interest in other traditional forms of political activity are on the wane.

Eco labels have become a kind of everyday ballot and shopping ethically a statement of intent for many average individuals, an immediate way of saying ‘these are the things I care about’. Research suggests that the majority of would like to see a comprehensive system of eco-labels that would provide point-of-purchase information on such criteria as whether the workers receive a living wage, whether the animals were treated humanely and whether the food was locally grown.

Many people who shop ethically now consider it a duty. But it can also come as a pleasant surprise to find that the dull rather worthy public image of ethical shopping is often at odds with what we can now buy ethically, namely goods produced sustainably, and to a higher quality, than those of conventional producers.

But as the preceding pages have shown we are still a long way away from this single comprehensive labelling scheme and none of us can act on information we don’t have.  In this respect the simplistic ‘buyers guide to the future’ that we all hope will make our choices easier and greener, is still frustratingly out of reach. The existing loopholes and missing information of eco labelling is important because if we make our shopping decisions based on a single variable we can only ever fulfil a single goal. Apples are good for you. But if you only ever eat apples, you will not have a well balanced diet. It’s much the same with using eco labels for shopping.

There is still no all-encompassing label for instance, to guarantee that our clothes and other non-food items are not made with sweatshop or slave labour. Likewise although organic produce commands a higher price at the checkout there are no guarantees that workers on organic farms are benefiting.  According to a 2005 report researchers at University of California Davis, a majority of 188 California organic farms surveyed did not pay a living wage or provide medical or retirement plans.

Caring at a distance, as modern consumer behaviour is sometimes defined, may help support industry in the developing world, but it can leave local communities in tatters, produce pollution through air miles and manufacturing effluent and emissions, promote waste in the mountains primary, secondary and shipping packaging required to move goods around the globe and get them on the market shelves. It can also reduce the people involved in producing those goods to mere ghosts.

A telling piece of research in 2005 researchers showed how easy it is get shunted down one particular avenue of ‘caring’ and lose sight of the big picture, even when you are trying to shop ethically. Researchers at the Center for Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems, University of California Santa Cruz found that when asked to rank the importance of five potential eco labels (indicating the product was either humane, locally grown, provided a living wage to workers, US grown or small scale) nearly twice as many people were concerned about animal welfare as they were about the welfare of those who grew and picked the food (30 versus 16 per cent).

Individual choices that we make about the food we eat and the clothes we wear, about how to light our homes and how to travel can make a substantial difference on many levels. But simply substituting ethical goods for all the regular goods we buy doesn’t solve anything. The fact is we buy too much stuff. We shop unconsciously, substituting brand names for trust, and eco labels for ‘ethics’.

By all means let’s celebrate how far we have come, but let’s also not lose sight of the fact the marketplace is a business and the ethical goods sector is still, frustratingly, subject to the laws of ‘free trade’. Leaving the choice up to the ‘free market’ means that the consumer is being delegated the role of regulator. This is unacceptable.

In a world where the ethical production and sale of goods was a true priority, our governments would not allow products that waste or pollute or onto the marketplace. So far no government has had the courage to accept this point of view and to say ‘no’ to manufacturers that waste and pollute. But things are changing. Recently the Australian government announced that as from 2009 it will ban incandescent light bulbs in favour of more energy efficient compact fluorescent bulbs. This makes Australia the first country in the world to take the definitive action of making the world better by restricting consumer choice.

While the marketplace is changing, it is worth, every once in a while just asking why is it changing? Is it because multinational companies have seen the light or is it because they have seen a chance to profit?

Many big companies are willing to produce premium ethical goods if their customers show a willingness to pay for them.  The ethical content of a product is seen as a commodity, it has a market value. Organic products, for example, are typically 20-30 per cent more costly than regular goods.

The same companies that are now incorporating ethical goods into their ranges are those that have for decades made money by churning out cheaply produced, often toxic goods and charging as much as they could get away with. Leaving the success or failure of ethical shopping to the free market is a giant (fair trade) banana skin waiting to trip us up. The one thing the free market has taught us is that manufacturers are quite happy to produce unethical goods when it is more profitable to do so. Without decisive action from government, alongside thoughtful effort on the part of consumers, it is a certainty that producers will return to hawking value over and above values when it is to their advantage to do so.

Buying according to eco labels is only a small step away from slavish brand loyalty.  It an unthinking act, that demands no discipline, or forethought and therefore no acknowledgement of the real problems of making consumption a lifestyle choice, namely that it is what we buy, why we buy, how and how much we buy that are the real problems.

When Bono launched the Red product range, that encourages people to alleviate poverty by shopping for the right branded goods, he opined that shopping is the most political thing any of us can do. In truth not shopping is the most political act we can engage in. Not buying that solar powered cappuccino whisk is the greenest shopping there is. Not feeling guilty when we hear a media report that sales in the high street are down is an act of maturity and rationality that recognises that the definition of quality of life doesn’t begin and end with the GDP.

It’s a hackneyed journalistic device but consider the he dictionary definition of consuming, namely: to use up; to devour; to waste or spend; to exhaust; to destroy by wasting.

Surveys into our buying habits in the UK show that we are a country of wasters. We buy clothes and shoes we never wear, food we never eat, books we never read, DVDs we never watch, toiletries and cosmetics we never apply, gadgets we never use. The idea of being able to ‘waste’ money or resources may be psychologically comforting, creating as it does a margin in the individual’s view between merely surviving and ‘living well’. The degree of ability to ‘waste’ may act as a display of how well we are doing. But it is a terrible way to live, as the mountains of personal debt in the UK and elsewhere in the ‘civilized’ world are showing.

If we are ever going to make progress to a fairer world the first thing we have to do is stop being wasters and stop defining ourselves as consumers.

The trend towards using eco-labels suggests a belief that the high street is the frontline in the fight for a fairer world and that an ethical life will evolve out of ethical shopping. Actually it works the other way round. Live an ethical life and your shopping habits, and by extension the world we inhabit, will be forever and for the better changed.

This is the original version of a piece that appeared in the April 2007 edition of the Ecologist. What was intended to  be a lengthy special was heavily edited so it is included here for the sake of completeness. See the published version here.