Agriculture Myth Busting
Compared to 70 years ago, Canadians are no longer as connected to their food or its production. For this reason, food labels offer valuable information that helps consumers assess and compare goods, particularly for the pieces of information that are not immediately obvious. For instance, Country of Origin Labels inform us of where our food is produced – a trait that is not otherwise experienced without being in print; you cannot taste “Canada” in a pork chop. In the sustainability space, labels can also improve policy and farm revenues, as purchasing behaviours signal back up the supply chain (at least in the short term) that the bought good has desirable traits worth promoting (Figure 1). For this reason, consumers gravitate toward heavily-promoted terms like “organic” and “local” as simple purchasing decisions that are better buys than foods without those titles. While we are more likely to overlook price increases if desirable sustainability labels are present and prominent, which labels deserve that consideration is personal.
At risk of sounding like a broken record, sustainability is a way of living without an endpoint and can therefore be independently defined by each business. The same risk applies to labels. There are over 100 sustainable certifications currently or have previously been approved for use in Canada alone. Of those certifications available, around 20 are specifically designated for the agri-food sector. While we would all love ‘sustainably produced’ food to be farmed with the same standards for ecological, precision inputs, diversity, (bio)technology, and quality of life considerations, the number of different labels signals each certification breaks down the sustainability concept into its priorities and methods, and can saturate the sustainability message. (For this reason, some analyses file nutritional labels into the sustainability labels category since nutrition improves food security, although the remainder of this discussion will lean away from the subcategory.) This is not inherently negative, as there are multiple ways to approach improved sustainability, but it reveals the truth that a suggestion of best management practices is not guaranteed or even consistent sustainability.
The Accountability Challenge
One of the major issues with disseminating information from labels is that over two-thirds of sustainability labels are environmentally focused. This aligns itself well with government and industry initiatives that focus on environmentally sustainable development (often referred to as best practices or best management practices) as easy entry-points into improved production. Not to mention the complementarity with consumers’ general understanding of sustainability being typically broad and reliant on the environmental pillar. Hence the necessity of regulations, especially as industry attempts to compensate for the shortfalls of government preventing Canada from becoming a true agriculturally sustainable powerhouse.
What Consumers Want
Fundamentally, Canada is referenced as an apathetic player, heavily reliant on ideas without follow-through. I am specifically referencing the absent sustainability descriptions or label compliance guidelines that remain vague even in practice and insufficient or outdated feedback data. To clarify, while marketers create labels to promote the positive attributes of the product, pulling you into a transaction with information you find valuable, regulators, like the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA), are responsible for preventing misleading claims from print. In the absence of clear guidelines, the risk of greenwashing or nefarious implications increases, and trust of labels overall declines. This is not independent of sustainability, since plant-based egg alternatives have also been known to tryout plant-based labels until the CFIA flags the product, as opposed to the provision of guidelines for which claims can be associated with ‘plant-based.’
It is difficult to quantify the role of sustainability labels in informing purchase behaviours. Depending on the paper, between nine percent and 75 percent of consumers rely on sustainability labels when food shopping. Beneficial label traits can have halo effects, which means we associate terms regardless of how true they are; a great example of this is the belief that certified organic is healthier than conventional. By extension, sustainable shopping is limited by the consumers’ knowledge of sustainability terms. This however complicates the experience when there are numerous labels, unfamiliar terms, or incorrectly used vocabulary. (If you’re interested, A Greener World – an American nonprofit focused on improving sustainability literacy – has a great guide for recognizing the nuances between sustainability claims.) For this reason, sustainability labels could be unhelpful, as exemplified by the third of consumers who find it difficult to navigate the number of seals, and the 44% of individuals unconvinced by sustainability claims citing the labels for the thinking.
Getting Us All on the Same Page
Even when labels are recognized, the lack of certification standards limits the comparability of products and the credibility of labels. The Carbon Trust label, which can be recognized by its green footprint, acknowledges that its seal cannot be matched across grocery shelves because they are assessed using different criteria (Figure 3). Huge food players like McCain, PepsiCo, Starbucks, and McDonald’s have independent sustainability initiatives, with different deadlines and benchmarks for what their business considers important. BCorp, an environmental and social sustainability certification available across a variety of industries, has over 100 criteria for businesses to meet, and requires any 80 be met before certification. Similarly, while Rainforest Alliance requires a third-party audit and legal agreement for certification, Fertilizer Canada promotes 4R fertilizer application (right source, right time, right rate, right place) and requires only a self-completed confirmation form. This is written not to disparage sustainability efforts or purchasing decisions; it is designed to highlight the current nothingness attached to ‘sustainable’ on Canadian labels.
There is no definitive solution to the mess of voluntary labels, as the credibility challenge encompasses production and consumption. One of the most common debates in this space is how many dimensions should be on the label. The current label landscape prefers individual dimensions; this is why there seem to be so many (arguably too many) labels and very little connectivity between products or marketing sincerity. The use of multi-dimensional labels, which utilize a variety of sustainability signals across pillars to create one ‘sustainability score’ for the good, can risk having information lost in the label and is heavily reliant on consumer understanding (of sustainability terms, of practice logistics, of the certification process). Regardless of the type of label, it is important that industry promotes sustainability competency for all market players, or else labels are not performing their role as efficiently as necessary.
Concluding Remarks
There is no right or wrong way to be a sustainable consumer. While voluntary labels can make the decision process easier, it is an incomplete solution. It is valuable to independently research certifications to find which aspects of sustainability are prioritized by the company and whether business ethics match personal ethics. Especially if sustainable progress is the direction Canada wants to go, it is worth investing in holistic support policies help producers and industry meaningfully transition. With the addition of clarity in both Canada’s sustainability framing and certification guidelines, the agri-food system can rebuild its strength and credibility, allowing consumers to make better informed and sustainable choices.
