Survey of 27,000 Australian supermarket items found some products boasting environmental benefits had significantly higher emissions than unlabelled counterpartsFoods in supermarkets boasting environmental terms such as “natural” or “sustainable” are mostly just using marketing speak, rather than verified claims, Australian researchers have found.More than 27,000 packaged foods sold at Coles, Woolworths, Aldi, IGA and Harris Farm supermarkets in Sydney were assessed by researche
Of 27,000 packaged foods assessed at Coles, Woolworths and other grocers, one in four carried a sustainability claim.
Photograph: Xinhua/Shutterstock View image in fullscreen Of 27,000 packaged foods assessed at Coles, Woolworths and other grocers, one in four carried a sustainability claim.
Photograph: Xinhua/Shutterstock Supermarket foods claiming to be ‘natural’ or ‘sustainable’ mostly just using marketing terms, researchers find Survey of 27,000 Australian supermarket items found some products boasting environmental benefits had significantly higher emissions than unlabelled counterparts Foods in supermarkets boasting environmental terms such as “natural” or “sustainable” are mostly just using marketing speak, rather than verified claims, Australian researchers have found.
More than 27,000 packaged foods sold at Coles, Woolworths, Aldi, IGA and Harris Farm supermarkets in Sydney were assessed by researchers from the George Institute for Global Health.
Nearly four in 10 products carried some sort of sustainability claim, the study in Public Health Nutrition found.
Associate Prof Alexandra Jones, the institute’s program lead for food governance, said the majority of claims were self-declared by the manufacturer, without independent verification.
“Consumers are increasingly trying to make food choices that are good for the planet, and manufacturers know it. What we’re finding is that the labels designed to guide those choices are largely unregulated and that creates real risks of greenwashing.” Oil-based products are everywhere, from fertiliser to fashion. What are the alternatives?
Read more Out of 69 different environmental claims identified by the researchers, “natural” and “vegan” appeared most often. Some, like “sustainable” or “natural”, were so broad as to be almost meaningless, she said.
“There’s no legal meaning of ‘natural’, but we know that people associate it with being better for you, or being better for the environment,” she said. “But many things are natural that are not good in a health context. Sugar is natural – that doesn’t mean it’s good for you.” In a second study, George Institute researchers assessed whether products displaying climate-related claims actually had lower emissions, publishing their results in Cleaner and Responsible Consumption .
They found, in general terms, that products making such claims had lower carbon footprints, however in certain categories the opposite was true.
In meat and confectionery – two high-emitting categories – products boasting environmental benefits had significantly higher emissions than their unlabelled counterparts.
Lead author Mariel Keaney said this raised serious concerns for consumer trust.
“When ‘carbon friendly’ labels appear on some of the highest-emitting products in a category, that label isn’t just unhelpful, it’s also potentially misleading. Shoppers trying to reduce their environmental footprint deserve better than that.” Prof Natalina Zlatevska, who researches health and sustainability marketing policy at the University of Technology Sydney, said consumers had an interest in sustainability and a desire to understand the impact that their food and grocery items had on the environment.
But Zlatevska, who was not involved in the research, said so many different claims, and the lack of clear definitions, created a lot of confusion.
“What’s lacking is something that’s universal,” she said. Other countries were moving towards standardised ratings, like the Eco-Score system in France, which gave products a traffic light-style rating reflecting their environmental impact.
“It needs to be informative enough for a consumer to make a really fast decision in the supermarket,” she said. “Anything that’s colour-coded, really simple to decipher.” About half of Australians considered sustainability when shopping and often relied on labels or on-pack messaging when making decisions, said Chandni Gupta, deputy chief executive of the Consumer Policy Research Centre, who was not involved in the research.
Labels that were clear, specific and backed by evidence or independent verification could be helpful. “We found Australians want practical information that helps them compare products and make informed choices,” she said.
“The problem is that genuinely useful claims currently sit alongside vague or unsubstantiated ones, making it harder for anyone to know what to trust.” Jones said the findings highlighted the need for regulatory action.
If environmental claims were robust and regulated they could act as a powerful lever to improve the sustainability of foods, she said.
In the meantime, consumers wanting to reduce their impact should focus on reducing their meat intake, and eating more fruits, vegetables and legumes – “whole categories that we know just are better for the environment, rather than worrying too much about individual products”.
Explore more on these topics Food Australian climate and environment in focus Supermarkets Greenhouse gas emissions news Share Reuse this content
