The EU Food Policy Coalition is asking the European Commission to evaluate the best methodologies for environmental food labeling. The risk, if the PEF(Product Environmental Footprint) scheme is approved, is to reward intensive agriculture with pesticide use and cage farms instead of environmentally friendly organic agronomic and animal husbandry practices.
Environmental food labeling, the letter
The open letter of 7.3.22 is signed by 14 NGO members of the EU Food Policy Coalition. (1) All support the ugenza of adopting labeling that reveals to the consumer the profile of the food from environmental, nutritional and social aspects, as well as with reference to animal welfare. But they refute the method.
‘We have serious concerns on the Product Environmental Footprint (PEF) methodology, currently being considered by DG ENV as the basis for the forthcoming green claims validation proposal, which will also apply to agri-food products and which could be taken up by DG SANTE to assess the environmental performance of food in the forthcoming initiative on sustainability labeling under the Sustainable Food Systems Framework legislation‘, the NGOs write.
The contradictions of the PEF
The product-focused PEF(Product Environmental Footprint) method was initially designed for industrial goods. It was not designed to be applied to complex agribusiness systems. And indeed, when applied, it produces misleading results.
The anomalies are serious if the goal is to implement the Farm to Fork strategy. PEF, in fact, penalizes extensive farming practices and rewards intensive ones. For example, eggs from caged hens score better than free-range eggs, which in turn score better in comparison with organic eggs. An absurdity, evidently.
Agriculture is not a factory
The reason for these misrepresentations is that PEF is predominantly a yield indicator. Thus it ‘blindly’ favors the most intensive production methods, without taking into account various positive elements nor the negative externalities of the food production process.
Production methods, however, are crucial in defining the sustainability of agri-food products. In fact, as much as 83 percent of the impact of the 2,500 most consumed food products is related to agricultural production.
An enemy method of marine wildlife
Confirming the unsuitability of the PEF method for environmental or sustainability food labeling is the lack of parameters now also dear to consumers, such as impact on biodiversity and pesticide use.
In the category rules (PEFCR), moreover, the method applied to sea fish does not take into account fishing methods, which are instead decisive in fish stock reductions, the NGOs explain.
Comparison needed
Before it is too late, the NGO signatories of the open letter call on the European Commission to establish an inclusive governance process, with meetings aimed at assessing the critical issues mentioned.
Alternative methods to PEF such as PlanetScore and Omni Label are already available and in use, as we have seen.
The goal, after all, is well known: to pursue the goals of the Farm to Fork strategy, including reducing the use of pesticides, fertilizers and antimicrobials, increasing the share of EU farmland farmed organically, and improving animal welfare.
Marta Strinati
Notes
(1) The open letter is available at this link.
The signatory NGOs are The European Consumer Organization (BEUC) BirdLife Europe and Central Asia, Compassion in World Farming EU, Biodynamic Federation Demeter International, European Environmental Bureau (EEB), European Community of Consumers Co-operatives, Eurogroup for Animals, Fair Trade Advocacy Office, Feedback, FOUR PAWS European Policy Office, Greenpeace European Unit, IFOAM Organics Europe, PAN Europe, Slow Food Europe.
Professional journalist since January 1995, he has worked for newspapers (Il Messaggero, Paese Sera, La Stampa) and periodicals (NumeroUno, Il Salvagente). She is the author of journalistic surveys on food, she has published the book "Reading labels to know what we eat".
