What Is Slow Food > Slow Food USA Blog > New Swedish labeling system has some kinks
The Slow Food USA Blog
New Swedish labeling system has some kinks
Posted on Mon, October 26, 2009 by Jerusha Klemperer
1 Comments | Categories: Labeling, News, Current Events, Policy,
Print this Page
Send to a Friend
by intern Emily Stephenson
For many people, going to the grocery store has become an overload of choices and information. There’s fat-free, low-sugar, free-range, organic, added vitamins, fair-trade and “natural,” just to name a few of the confusing labels. As the “Smart Choices” program has been put on hold, and we no longer have to consider Froot Loops and spinach in the same category.
But according to the New York Times, the Swedish government is the first to attempt to make environmentally responsible shopping easier for its citizens. In the pilot program, certain products will receive a total carbon emissions amount based on calculations that take into account fertilizer, fuel for harvesting machinery, packaging and transport. For example a box of oatmeal reads: “Climate declared: .87 kg CO2 per kg of product.” Products also can get a general seal of approval from the government that takes into account growing conditions or harvesting practices. Under the new system, carrots pass, and so do beans and chicken, but not fish, tomatoes, cucumbers or beef.
The new initiative has been eye opening. Not only in terms of Sweden’s environmental ambitiousness (according to the article, Sweden has been a world leader in finding new ways to reduce emissions. It has vowed to eliminate the use of fossil fuel for electricity by 2020 and cars that run on gasoline by 2030). But also for producers and consumers. The Swedish burger chain Max discovered that 75 percent of its carbon footprint was created by the meat it served. And since the emissions counts started appearing on the menu, the sale of climate-friendly foods have risen 20 percent.
“The Swedish effort grew out of a 2005 study by Sweden’s national environmental agency on how personal consumption generates emissions. Researchers found that 25 percent of national per capita emissions — two metric tons per year — was attributable to eating. The government realized that encouraging a diet that tilted more toward chicken or vegetables and educating farmers on lowering emissions generally could have an enormous impact.”
Yet it seems in some ways, the new labeling system raises more questions than it answers. Without any context, what does “.87 kg CO2 per kg of product” really mean to the everyday shopper? Are there targets for consumers? Obviously the goal is none, but that is still unrealistic for most consumers. Without a target range, or guidelines, the numbers might just make consumers confused. Which is how a lot of people already feel when shopping for food. Or worse, guilty, as a few Swedes interviewed for the article admitted.
It’s a commendable effort by the Swedish government. At least one government has finally acknowledged the link between food and emissions. And it is a good start to educating consumers about their choices. But we still need to learn a lot more. And judging by the always-entertaining comments on the article, we’ve got a long way to go.
Member Comments
From Cat @ Slow Food on Tue, October 27, 2009
I am very much in favor of being mindful of the environment when making food choices, but I am immediately turned off by the idea of labeling food based on carbon emissions.
The issue comes down to this for me:
While I realize that they are a necessary evil in certain settings, I find current food labels (nutritional facts and figures and not the myriad of “health claims” and “approvals” stamped on sugary cereal boxes) to be only marginally helpful. For one thing, they mean very little out of context, and I find that a general knowledge of what’s good for me, along with practicing moderation and portion control, is far more helpful than calculating the calories in an ounce of my favorite cheese. The former helps me make balanced and healthy lifestyle choices, while the latter sucks the life out of something that I enjoy.
In my view, the same goes for labeling based on energy emissions. Rather than label every food item, why not educate the public on the bigger picture? For example, more packaging means more energy was expended to produce the item in question. I know when I learned that little tid-bit, I thought very differently about buying highly packaged products as opposed to more “raw” materials.
Also not to be overlooked is the fact that energy labeling could touch off stricter regulations for other food labels. For example the ones that KRAV, Scandinavia?s main organic certification program, will require next year as mentioned in the Times article. The process of earning a “certified organic” label is already financially unattainable for many small sustainable farms. Adding another requirement means a greater expense to the farmers and, eventually, to consumers, while many environmentally conscious farms will have to bow out of the certified organic market entirely.
Overall, I agree with Emily that the Swedish government’s intentions are good. It’s refreshing to see a country actively thinking forward about reducing carbon emissions, especially in relation to food production. But in my view, education, and not more labels, is the answer.
