Strolling the aisles of the local supermarket, the socially and environmentally conscious shopper gravitates toward products tastefully packaged with images of idyllic barnyards and baskets of produce, and scrawled with hand-lettered catchphrases such as “natural,” “bio,” “dolphin- friendly” and “free range.”

Many of us gladly pay a premium for such goods, as we assume they represent a more humane, environmentally friendly option than mass-produced goods.

But is this always the case?

Unfortunately not. So concludes a recent study entitled, “Green Food Claims: An International Survey of Self-Declared Green Claims on Selected Food Products.” Conducted by Consumers International (CI) and eight of its member organisations from Europe and North America, the study found “a large number of logos and claims that were vague or meaningless” because they weren’t subject to third-party verification and abided by no standards.

Three of the eight member organisations involved in the study are from Central and Eastern Europe: the Consumers Defence Association (SOS) of the Czech Republic, the Romanian Association for Consumers’ Protection (APC Romania), and the Slovene Consumers Association (ZPS) of Slovenia. Research in these countries found the markets of CEE are no strangers to bogus, unsubstantiated or misleading claims.

In Romania, researchers found egg cartons claiming to originate from free-range farms, but there was no way to verify this. According to the report, labels such as “natural” and “bio” are not regulated in Romania, so they are widely used improperly and thus guarantee nothing. The report gives examples of labels showing quaint family farms intended to give the impression of more traditional, small-scale production. Usually, the reality is quite different, with the ingredients coming from large farms and the processing taking place in rather unromantic factories.

What does ‘bio’ mean?

Alpha Bio, a Slovakian company with products on the Czech market, is an example of a brand name that can be misleading, as most of its products lack organic certification. Czech legislation prohibits the use of the word “bio” on products that do not originate from certified organic farms. However, products such as those from Alfa Bio slip under the radar, as the company is registered under this name. Consumers don’t always distinguish between the brand name and other labels on products. Jan Lunter, the founder and director of Alfa Bio, doesn’t believe that customers are misled by his company’s brand name. “When we came up with our name, the claim of “bio” was not well-known. And at the same time we can say that in our 13- year history, we have never gotten a warning from our customers that we have [misled them] with our brand name.” To Lunter, the term “bio” refers to the fact that the products are vegetarian and healthy, which is the company’s aim. Alfa Bio includes organic items in its product line and Lunter predicts more will be added as the market for them expands.

This problem of interpretation is compounded by language and regulatory differences as products cross borders. Terms such as “organic” and “bio” mean different things in different markets, and certification bodies have different criteria, making it difficult for consumers to know what they’re getting.

The principle to which logos and claims were compared for this study was ISO standard 14021:1999(E), which requires that self-declared environmental claims and any explanatory statements shall be:

• accurate and not misleading;
• substantiated and verified;
• relevant to that particular product, and used only in an appropriate context or setting;
• presented in a manner that clearly indicates whether the claims apply to the complete product, or only to a product component or packaging, or to an element of a service; and
• unlikely to result in misinterpretation.

This principle is supported by a variety of other international and national conventions and laws. One of the major problems is that regulations on food labelling are not followed and poorly enforced. For example, according to the report, “ISO 14020 and 14021 are declared Slovene standards (SIST), but do not appear to be well known to consumers, producers or government officials.”

Marjana Peterman of ZPS concedes that “labelling changes are not something that happens overnight” and that “claims of this nature will continue forever.” But progress is possible. ZPS launched a campaign on labelling in Slovenia three years ago, sponsored by the government and the European Commission. According to Peterman, in the first year approximately 76 percent of labels did not comply with applicable legislation. That number dropped to 67 percent in the second year of the campaign, and to 45 percent in the third. Consumers International and its partners laid out a comprehensive set of recommendations that they believe will help shoppers understand exactly what labels mean.

Will consumers stop seeking out more environmentally friendly products after they read the report? Peterman acknowledges there is risk of this.

Consumers dedicated to shopping responsibly do not, however, need to feel completely lost. Karel Pavlik of SOS states that “the aim was to make people think about this and not to trust absolutely everything on the packaging. Consumers should ask questions, not just of themselves, but of the producers.” SOS helps consumers to discriminate between product claims by providing evaluations of the trustworthiness of different labels on its website.

Todd Schenk is a project officer in the REC's NGO Support Programme