Clean and Green Labelling

Food product labelling influences consumer food choices. Major consumer trends over the last few years have included demands for “clean” labels, and “health and wellness”. Consumers want to be able to understand an ingredient list without having to decipher it; and ultimately, they want to see ingredients that match what they have in their own kitchens.

This reflects in their hesitancy to accept ingredients that sound like engineered chemicals. Most Clean & Green labelling people feel processed foods are unhealthy; they look for the words “natural” and “pure”.

Characteristics that make shoppers feel one product is more processed than another include artificial flavourings, colourants, preservatives, and a long shelf life. At the same time, they want their food to contain fewer allergens and to contain as much nutrition as possible. This trend lends itself to lists of nutrition and health claims on labels. Essentially the consumer is seeking out “good” stuff, and wanting less “bad” stuff in their food.

A new trend that has begun to surface is the consumer need to have “green” options in a food category. This new kid on the block does not yet have its own formal category of claims and endorsements; rather, it adopts some we have seen before. These include “organic”, “humane farming”, “free-range”, “grass-fed”, and “country of origin”. Of course, these are in addition to the product-specific and manufacturer-fabricated “green” claims.

How do these claims share the “clean and green” category?

Farming produce organically not only removes pesticides and chemicals from the food that we eat, but also requires farmers to consider alternate farming practices, which encourages practices that support natural ecosystems.

Humane farming was initiated for the welfare of animals; however, some consumers understand the burden that meat production and consumption puts on our resource-strained- environment, and are now opting to reduce their meat consumption and select meat produce from smaller producers who employ humane farming practices. Grass-fed may be the choice of meat connoisseurs, but it’s also the choice of those who prefer to eat meat reared on a more natural resource, rather than using resources to grow, harvest and transport animal feed.

“Point of origin” and “locally produced” are descriptors defined in South African labelling regulations (under “country of origin”). Consumers can use this information to decide, for instance, if they will purchase imported out-of-season produce, which would contribute to global CO2 emissions; or to choose whether or not they will support local producers.

“Natural”, “fresh” and “pure” are among the descriptors that have regulations to govern how and when they may be applied. These statements play squarely in the “cleaner” label arena, but could also entice a consumer to purchase a product due to a perceived connection to being a “greener” choice.

How do the South African regulations govern these trends? The SA labelling regulations (R. 146) provide clear guidance on the types of “free of the bad stuff” and “high in the good stuff” statements that are permitted, However, there are no clear and final regulations governing the “greener choice” claims (except for the use of words such as “natural” and “pure”, and the “country of origin” descriptor).

Responsible and environmentally-friendly brand choices are important consumer trends that need to find their place
in the current environment. A good start to formalising “green space” labelling would be to create and refine regulations that support these claims, levelling the playing field for participating manufacturers. Without regulations, each manufacturer has carte blanche to entice the consumer in any manner they wish.

Other articles you may be interested in:
It’s Simply ‘Natural’
Does the pace of regulatory progress slow innovation?