Can Consumers Trust "Eco-Labels"?

August 26, 2001
Los Angeles Times

Eco-Labels on Food Called Into Question

Marketing: With few rules and lax oversight, some producers put
unsubstantiated claims on their products.

By MELINDA FULMER, TIMES STAFF WRITER

Dolphin safe. Bird friendly. Eco-OK. Fair Trade Certified. Protected
Harvest. Nature's Friend. The guilt-free labels on food are multiplying,
spurred in part by the success of the organic movement.
Some of these claims, such as "dolphin safe," have clear and verifiable
standards. But what does "nature's friend" mean? No one knows for sure,
other than the food maker putting it on its label.

In fact, critics say some of these labels are just feel-good slogans that
offer no guarantee of real environmental protection. They say the labels'
standards aren't rigorous enough and many claims aren't verified, leaving
consumers paying more for nothing. Even those labels that carry the name
of some of the country's largest and most respected environmental
organizations, such as the Nature Conservancy, World Wildlife Fund and
Environmental Defense, are being called into question by farmers and
consumer groups. They call it "greenwashing."

"There are some labels out there missing the mark," said Urvashi Rangan, a
project director with Consumers Union, a consumer watchdog group. "Their
standards aren't meaningful or their label or logo is not consistent in
meaning from product to product."

"It's just a bunch of growers trying to jump on the bandwagon of organic
without having to do a whole heck of a lot," said Jim Cochran, who owns
Swanton Berry Farm in Davenport, Calif. "It's a marketing tool."
Groups that provide such certification, and some environmentalists, defend
these eco-labels, saying they may promote a broader range of benefits than
organic certification by ensuring better conditions for workers, aiding
conservation and, in many cases, providing lower pesticide levels for
consumers who can't afford or can't find pure organic products.
"You get some of the public health and environmental benefits and send a
signal back that encourages [farmers] to use less pesticides," said Ken
Cook, president of Environmental Working Group, which is preparing to
launch a "lower-pesticide" food marketing program in a couple of months.
However, because many of these efforts are new and oversight is lax,
farming experts said it's hard to tell what strides food companies are actually
making.

In some cases, food companies aren't following anyone's standards. They
either create their own labels and standards or simply pay for the right to
use an environmental association's logo.

General Mills, for instance, paid $115,000 to the Nature Conservancy for
the right to use its oak-leaf logo on boxes of Nature Valley granola bars. The
logo offers no environmental promises or benefits, other than signifying
General Mills' payment to the Nature Conservancy,

Buying such products is an easy way, marketing experts said, for affluent
consumers to believe they are making a difference.

"They can salve their conscience and contribute to the [environmental]
movement without being terribly inconvenienced," said Stuart Fischoff, a
professor of media psychology at Cal State L.A.

Certain programs, such as "dolphin-safe" tuna, have unquestionably aided
conservation efforts. The label means the tuna was caught without the use
of certain nets that can trap and kill dolphins in some areas where tuna are
known to swim with dolphins. It also ensures that fishing boats in these
areas are regularly inspected.

State and new federal organic label guidelines are providing a mostly
reliable yardstick for consumers concerned about pesticides and other
chemicals used in farming. To receive organic certification, farmers must
not have used synthetic pesticides or fertilizers on their fields for three
years, and their crops must not be genetically engineered.

Consumers Union gave a thumbs-up to the new Free Farmed label, created
in conjunction with the American Humane Assn., which certifies humane treatment
of dairy cows and animals slaughtered for meat, and to the Fair Trade coffee
label, which seeks to ensure that coffee growers get a fair price for their
beans.

But the differences between legitimate programs and marketing shams aren't
clear to most consumers. Indeed, it can be difficult for even the most
discriminating consumers to ascertain the validity of the claims made by
many of these labels.

One certifying organization--Stemilt Growers, a marketing group that sells
its fruit under the Responsible Choice label--refuses to disclose its
standards or its board of directors.

Other organizations, such as the Nature Conservancy, allow use of their
logos on a variety of products, from potato chips to beef, in exchange for a
share of profits, making if difficult for consumers to know what benefit
they're getting, other than a name they recognize and feel good about.
The lack of regulation of this growing marketing niche probably has
encouraged many unscrupulous companies to use unsubstantiated, vague
slogans such as "earth smart," "green" and "nonpolluting," analysts said.
And many are making claims about standards already required by law.
Poultry processors, for instance, may claim their products are hormone-free
in an attempt to charge a higher price, even though use of hormones in
chicken and hogs is barred by the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Some products fall through the cracks, Rangan said. Because there are no
USDA humane-treatment standards or free-range regulations for egg producers,
there is nothing to enforce. Consumers buying free range eggs must take the
producer's word for it. Likewise, free range beef is not monitored by the
department.

Even when labeling claims are approved by the USDA, they may not be as
restrictive as one could assume. Poultry raised and sold as "free range" is
not required to spend a specific amount of time outdoors, USDA's Food Safety
and Inspection Service officials said.

"The regulation on chickens is very minimal," Rangan said. "All they have to
do is open the [barn] door for five minutes."

The biggest problem analysts and academics have with many eco-labels is that
even when they do have clear standards, the way they are marketed is
misleading or less than straightforward. A program called NutriClean, for
instance, which markets fruits and vegetables to supermarkets with the claim
of "no detectable pesticide residues," is especially confusing, analysts
said.

NutriClean signs in a Los Angeles area Ralphs supermarket proclaim
NutriClean produce as "laboratory tested" and the "finest produce
available." Yet the tags and signs carry no mention of pesticides or any
information about what the produce is tested for.

Academics said the NutriClean threshold of 0.05 parts per million isn't the
lowest residue level that can be easily detected and certified. In fact, a
handful of products are required by the federal government to have lower
concentrations of pesticide residue.

Scientific Certification Systems, which administers the NutriClean program,
said its standard is much lower than the requirements for many produce
items. Its universal threshold is easy and reliable to test for, officials
said, and less difficult to manage across a wide range of crops and
pesticides.

"We needed a standardized place, a line in the sand somewhere," said Eric
Engbeck, director of SCS agriculture programs.

Testing of this sort is expensive, costing farmers $600 to $1,300. But
Engbeck said it gives growers access to new markets and in some cases a
premium for their products.

"If a customer has been with us for more than one season, then he has to
have benefited in some way," Engbeck said.

The Oakland-based company also is managing an eco-friendly line of potatoes
being launched this fall by the organization Protected Harvest and the World
Wildlife Fund. Bags of those potatoes, which will have lower pesticide
residues, will bear the WWF panda logo.

Although SCS is certifying this program's members and doing paperwork
inspections of the acreage that is claimed to be lower in pesticides, it is
not sampling any products for residues.

WWF officials said they know that, as a nonprofit organization, they are
walking a fine line when endorsing products, but they believe it's important
to give farmers some incentive to make more environmentally sound choices.
"It's a risky business," said Sarah Lynch, a senior program officer in the
WWF's Office of Conservation Innovation. It has taken the WWF and a
Wisconsin growers group four or five years to develop a program that both
environmentalists and farmers can live with.

Although many believe these eco-programs could have the dual benefit of
cleaning up the environment and helping growers who have been struggling
with low commodity prices, organic growers worry that they might cannibalize
their market.

And they might have reason to worry. A new eco-program called Food
Alliance Approved, developed by Portland, Ore.-based certification group
Food Alliance and activist group Environmental Defense, is marketing itself as
the more affordable alternative to organic.

"There's a very large consumer segment that wants to buy products grown in
environmentally and socially responsible ways that aren't willing to pay the
premium they have to pay to get organic," said Jonathan Moscatello, the Food
Alliance's agriculture program manager.

The allure of these labels has even persuaded natural foods giant Whole
Foods Markets to develop a line of "sustainable"--or less environmentally
damaging--produce that will begin hitting stores this fall. But it's not
pesticide-free, which has sparked a backlash from organic farmers who say
the company would be misleading customers.

Margaret Wittenberg, a Whole Foods vice president, said that she was
surprised by the response and that Whole Foods is reviewing the program to
ensure its standards and goals are clear and meaningful. "We are just
looking for ways to influence our conventional growers to improve [their]
practices and looking for ways to create value for local farmers" she said.
"What we want to do is accentuate organic."

Growers, consumers and the food industry eventually may come up with
standards and systems that have real meaning.

"It's just going to take a little time," said Gail Feenstra, a nutritionist
and food systems analyst at UC Davis. "There's nothing really standardized
yet. It's still all over the map."

In the interim, Fischoff believes, many consumers just want to trust that
they're doing good. "People want to believe," Fischoff said.

Sticker Shock

Here are a few environmental claims vying for consumer attention:

Free Farmed

The American Humane Assn. developed this program to certify that animals
raised for dairy, poultry and beef products are treated in a humane manner.
It has clear standards that are verified by an independent third-party
organization, Farm Animal Services.

Free Range

The term means an animal was raised in the open air and was free to roam.
The Department of Agriculture regulates the term only for poultry
production. Its use on beef and eggs is unregulated. The USDA does not
require chickens to have access to the outdoors for any specific amount of
time each day.

NutriClean

Produce is sold to supermarkets with the claim that it has "no detected
pesticide residues" above a certain threshold (0.05 parts per million). This
doesn't mean the fruits and vegetables are pesticide-free, and critics say
the pesticide-residue level isn't the lowest that can be reliably detected.
The program is independently verified and has clear standards, but some say
its signs are confusing for consumers.

*
For more information about many of the labels mentioned in this report,
visit www.eco-labels.org.
*

Source: Consumers Union, government and company reports

Evaluating Labels

Consumers Union offers several yardsticks to use when evaluating eco-labels.

Claims should have meaningful standards that can be verified by an
independent organization or inspector.

The standards should have originated with an independent body, not those
benefiting from the sale of the products.

The same label on different products should mean the same thing.

To help consumers evaluate eco-labels, Consumers Union has set up a Web
site at www.eco-labels.org.

Doing the homework is advisable, because government regulation of
eco-labeling is limited. Oversight is split among three agencies:

Commerce Department: Oversees much of the dolphin-safe tuna on the market.

USDA: Regulates meat and poultry claims such as "free range" and "raised
without hormones." Beginning next year, it will oversee the new federal
organic program.

Federal Trade Commission: Provides labeling guidelines for companies
interested in making eco-claims, and occasionally sends letters of complaint
to companies it finds making questionable claims.