Food systems make up about a third of global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, which means rethinking what we put on our plate can play a huge part in slashing our impact. But even with that knowledge, it can be a lot to ask for customers to keep track of which meals pack a heavier climate punch when they’re browsing the grocery aisles.
The practice of carbon labeling—literally emblazoning a product’s carbon footprint on its packaging—is one possible solution. But it’s imperfect: It can have only a small impact on our everyday shopping, and if implemented carelessly, it also can be a force for greenwashing, Laura Lee Cascada, senior director of campaigns at Better Food Foundation recently told FoodPrint. “One of the things we have flagged with carbon labeling is that because it may only focus on the carbon footprint and not any of the other environmental factors, it can lead to an uptake of fish and chicken,” she said. “Chicken has a carbon footprint 11 times that of lentils.”
Some experts argue that it’s not the labels themselves that are the problem, but what information we put on them. A new study published in the journal Appetite has zeroed in on what the authors think may be a better approach—one that also helps shoppers build a stronger understanding of what drives grub’s climate impacts.
According to study author Yi Li, typical carbon labels don’t include whether the food is animal- or plant-based––and that’s a major problem. For labels to be more effective, they should indicate what’s making its impact so hefty, she wrote in a recent post for The Conversation. The fix? A color-coded label that ranks foods from A (low emissions) to E (high emissions), but that also includes icons indicating whether a product is made mostly from animals or plants.
They call this approach an “item mapping” label, because it helps consumers connect the dots between a specific food source and its carbon impact. With this system in place, the authors found that only 19% of survey participants chose a meat-based snack over a vegetarian option, a more than 10% difference compared with uninformed participants.
The behavioral science that makes this work
Labeling food to change behavior isn’t a new idea. The EU has required front-of-packaging nutrition score labeling on prepackaged food for more than a decade. Whether for health or sustainability, these markers work via the concept of “behavioral nudging,” which says that the design of an environment can influence the choices people make. Food scientists have found that this approach is useful and cost-effective for informing dietary decisions, all while preserving consumers’ freedom of choice.
Carbon labeling, specifically, isn’t required by law in any country (efforts to make an “eco-score” a permanent fix in France were axed last year), and there are no official systems in the U.S.—at least not yet. But recent experiments have shown that even a little digital nudge can go a long way. When online grocery platforms display CO2 info and bundle plant-based products together, consumer selections of plant-based items jump from 25% to 37%.
Still, the effectiveness of these interventions depends on how engaged consumers already are with sustainable eating, meaning labels are just one part of the puzzle. Stepping into a supermarket with a solid understanding of the links between consumption and climate––whether that’s through the classroom, reading something like one5c on the regular, or government guidelines––can establish that baseline knowledge, with or without carbon labels.