AustLII Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback

University of New South Wales Law Journal Student Series

You are here:  AustLII >> Databases >> University of New South Wales Law Journal Student Series >> 2021 >> [2021] UNSWLawJlStuS 14

Database Search | Name Search | Recent Articles | Noteup | LawCite | Author Info | Download | Help

Zheng, Wendy --- "Should Food Be Labelled With Warnings Abouts Its Environmental Impact?" [2021] UNSWLawJlStuS 14; (2021) UNSWLJ Student Series No 21-14


SHOULD FOOD BE LABELLED WITH WARNINGS ABOUTS ITS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT?

WENDY ZHENG

Governments worldwide are now requiring health logos or warnings on the front of packaged foods to guide consumers to healthier choices. As global dietary advice shifts towards healthy and sustainable diets, should we also regulate to require environmental labelling on pack? Legal and practical challenges to health labelling worldwide, what are some of the likely challenges facing Australian policymakers interested in this policy?

I INTRODUCTION

In recent years, there has been a global shift in dietary advice towards healthy and sustainable diets.[1] Where governments worldwide are now requiring health logos or warnings on the front of packaged foods to guide consumers to healthier choices, there is an ongoing debate as to whether environmental impact labelling (“EIL”) should be similarly be mandated on food packaging.[2]

This essay will be structured in three main sections.

• The first section will explore the background of EIL, the rationale for mandating EIL, and the current status of EIL both in Australia and internationally.

• The second section will discuss whether Australia should regulate to require EIL on the packaging.

• The final section will discuss the key legal and practical challenges that Australian policymakers should consider in implementing an EIL scheme.

This essay recommends that EIL should be mandated on food packaging, as the benefits of EIL outweigh the potential disadvantages. However, an EIL scheme should have extensive measures in place to address the various legal and practical challenges.

II BACKGROUND

A Definitions

Broadly speaking, “EIL” refers to product-specific information printed on packaging, which discloses information regarding the environmental impact of producing/manufacturing the product.[3] This concept is derived from food labelling, referring to labels which disclose food product information such as its’ nutritional value.[4] This essay question suggests “regulating” to “require” EIL on packaging, which involves the enactment of legislation to make EIL mandatory for all food products. As discussed in Part IV, there is debate as to what should be encompassed in an EIL scheme, and the scope of regulation.

B Rationale for EIL

The food industry is one of the largest contributors to climate change. The food industry significantly degrades the environment in various ways, such as accounting for 26% of global carbon emissions, and 78% of water pollution.[5] This degradation of the environment has threatened the continuity of our civilisation.[6] Current processes and methods of cultivating food are arguably unsustainable, where immediate action needs to be taken where possible to reduce the industry’s environmental impact.

EIL attempts to address the impact of the food industry on climate change. It aims to provide consumers with information regarding the environmental sustainability of their purchases,[7] with the hope that consumer behaviour shifts towards the purchase of sustainable products.[8] This is a response to growing demand from consumers for environmentally sustainable products, where studies have found 66% to 75% of consumers would select and pay a higher price for a product if it was more environmentally sustainable than its’ competitors.[9] Subsequently, there is an incentive for food companies to undertake sustainable practices to gain favourable EIL to generate more sales.[10] EIL thus hypothetically reduces the contribution of the food industry to climate change by changing the habits and processes of consumers and companies.[11]

C Current Status of Labelling

Currently, it is not mandatory to have EIL on food products in Australia. Food labelling in Australia is governed by the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 and mandatory standards such as the Food Standards Code.[12] These mandatory standards require the disclosure of basic information such as ingredients,[13] where any additional voluntary claims must not be misleading or deceptive.[14] Subsequently, any voluntary EIL schemes are also governed by the CCA, as well as the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Consideration Act 1998, and the Environment Protection and Heritage Council.[15] Additionally, there are industry associations which corporations can seek further information and apply for various EILs, such as EcoLabel Index and GECA.[16]

There have also been global efforts to introduce EIL. International organisations such as the UN have attempted to accelerate the implementation of EIL through various initiatives, such as introducing the ISO Standards on EIL.[17] Additionally, there have also been initiatives from individual countries and corporations. For example, Denmark has announced its’ plans to introduce mandatory carbon footprint labels on all food products.[18] Panera Bread (US) also introduced “low-carbon” badges on certain meals,[19] as well as Tesco (UK) attempting to introduce a “carbon label” on all their products.[20] However, EIL is still a relatively new concept worldwide.

III SHOULD WE ALSO REGULATE TO REQUIRE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT LABELLING ON PACKS?

A Advantages to EIL

This section will discuss the key advantages of mandating an EIL scheme, being:

1. The ability to target the key contributors to climate change;

2. Encouraging innovation in the creation of new, sustainable food processes;

3. Increasing information to improve the ability for consumers to make informed choices; and

4. The case for government intervention.

1 Targeting the Key Contributors

A key argument for mandating EIL is that the food industry should be held accountable for their environmental impact, given that their business practices are one of the major contributors to climate change.[21] This is as everyone arguably has a duty to preserve the climate and make sustainable choices,[22] where the business practices of corporations degrade the environment in every stage of the food production cycle. For example, even before food production commences, natural habitats and ecosystems are cleared for agriculture, where biodiversity is further destroyed with the use of artificial fertilisers and pesticides.[23] During the processing and distribution stages of the food cycle, activities such as harvesting and transportation further degrade the environment.[24] Where so many environmental issues are directly linked to the actions of food producers/manufacturers,[25] greater obligations should be placed on them to act sustainably.

Mandating EIL holds food producers/manufacturers accountable to their practices by forcing them to disclose the environmental impact made by the production/manufacturing of their foods.[26] This would hold them accountable as the sales of their products may decrease if they have a negative EIL,[27] given the high consumer demand for sustainable products.[28] By targeting corporations who are responsible for the majority of issues concerning climate change, quicker improvements are made, in comparison to policies directed at individual consumers.[29]

2 Encouraging Innovation

Mandating EIL can encourage the development of new, innovative technologies which create more sustainable ways of producing/manufacturing food. This is as companies which have unsustainable practices are exposed by mandatory EIL, which provides clear information to consumers regarding the environmental sustainability of their purchases. Where many consumers are willing to boycott companies with unsustainable practices,[30] corporations which do not innovate and improve their practices may suffer financially. For example, 780,000 people boycotted Kellogg’s for their use of palm oil in their products.[31] Due to the negative media publicity from this boycott which subsequently impacted sales, Kellogg’s were forced to revise their practices.[32] Additionally, labels have been demonstrated to influence product purchases, such as where health labelling has increased the purchase of healthy foods by approximately 18%.[33] This provides a clear economic incentive for both corporations and suppliers with unsustainable practices to alter their processes to maintain sales.[34]

The effectiveness of labelling in encouraging corporations to innovate has been well-documented. Studies have found that some companies have increased their funding for their research and development facilities to improve their processes and attain voluntary EILs to increase revenue.[35] By making EIL mandatory, corporations would be forced to consider whether their products would gain a poor EIL and negatively impact their business,[36] which is likely to accelerate the creation of innovative practices which are more environmentally sustainable.[37]

3 Increasing Information, Improving Choices

Another argument for mandating EIL is to provide consumers with the information to make informed choices about the extent to which their diet is environmentally sustainable. As mentioned, many consumers consider the environmental sustainability of a product as a factor in their purchasing decision.[38] However, without mandatory EIL, consumers must either spend their own time conducting research, attempt to make guesses regarding the product’s sustainability, or exclude it as a factor from their purchasing decision.[39] These decisions are often based off a generic understanding of environmental sustainability, which is often misinformed or incorrect.[40] Furthermore, a lack of mandatory EIL disadvantages consumers from low-socioeconomic backgrounds from considering environmental sustainability in their purchasing decisions, where they have less time to research products and are more susceptible to deceptive marketing practices due to lower levels of education.[41] A mandatory EIL provides a level playing field where information is readily accessible to consumers of all backgrounds.

There is evidence to suggest EIL would be effective in providing information to consumers,[42] where labelling schemes have previously been effective in informing consumers about the nutritional value of their diets.[43] For example, 70% of consumers use food labels in the decision-making for their purchases.[44] Additionally, studies have shown that out of two million consumers, food labelling reduced fat intake by 10.6% and increased vegetable purchases by 13.5%.[45] Labels have also been proven to produce positive emotions for consumers when they make an environmentally-friendly purchase, which subsequently motivates consumers to continue making environmentally-conscious choices.[46] Thus, EIL could be a largely-utilised tool in drawing the attention of consumers as to the sustainability of their diets.[47]

4 The Case For Government Intervention

The government should arguably intervene to mandate EIL, as current measures from the food industry are insufficient to encourage sustainable practices. While voluntary EIL schemes carry many of the same benefits of mandatory EIL schemes, voluntary schemes are not independently developed, not adopted by all food industry participants,[48] and lack rigorous auditing requirements.[49] Where there are eleven years until climate change is irreversible,[50] immediate action is required by everyone, where the current adoption rate of EIL by the food industry is insufficient to realise an improvement in climate change. Thus, government intervention is necessary to protect the best interests of society,[51] where climate change has created an existential threat to society.[52]

Interestingly, while labelling is a form of government intervention, it is an instrument that fits in well with neoliberal economic systems globally.[53] This is where a mandatory EIL scheme would be less onerous to corporations than more drastic strategies the government could take. Drastic mandates have historically been effective in taking immediate action on urgent issues, such as Australia’s ban on plastic bags which prevented 1.5 billion non-degradable bags entering the environment.[54] However, similar drastic measures such as bans on certain company operations would likely disrupt markets and interrupt the food chain supply. Thus, a mandatory EIL scheme is an instrument that is well-suited to gradually reduce the impact of the food industry on climate change, while still preserving the stability of neoliberal markets.[55]

B Disadvantages to EIL

While there are multiple benefits to EIL, this section will discuss the key disadvantages of mandating an EIL scheme, being:

1. The ability for EIL to be misleading;

2. Economic strain on food producers/manufacturers;

3. Potential impacts on health and culture; and

4. The case against government intervention.

1 Potential to Mislead

EIL could potentially mislead consumers. This is as labelling is arguably only effective in highly-educated demographics,[56] who possess the knowledge to correctly interpret labels which are often complex and confusing.[57] Additionally, it is only wealthier demographics who have the economic means,[58] and the ability to expend the emotional labour in choosing between sustainable and non-sustainable products.[59] The manipulation of EIL to mislead consumers can occur in three main ways, which disproportionately impacts disadvantaged demographics.

First, EIL can be misleading if the scheme is not robust in its’ requirements and criteria in which it assesses food producers/manufacturers. Previously, various labelling schemes had weak policies, where corporations have subsequently found loopholes to circumvent their obligations.[60] As a result, the labels from these schemes disseminated incorrect and misleading information to the public.[61] For example, where Australian law requires “country of origin” disclosures on foods, Coles and Woolworths found a loophole in these laws by repackaging and sending imported foods to New Zealand and back to Australia.[62] Coles and Woolworths were thus able to sell imported foods with a “Made in Australia” logo, misleading consumers.[63] Additionally, the Heart Foundation’s questionable standards were exposed when it accepted $300,000 from McDonald’s to have their deep-fried products approved with the Tick.[64] These failures demonstrate the potential for an EIL mandate with poor regulations and standards to result in similar erroneous claims regarding the sustainability of products.

Secondly, EIL may mislead consumers to conflate a sustainable product to also mean that it is healthy, known as the “health halo”.[65] For example, Subway sources their ingredients from sustainable farms which have reduced carbon emissions and water usage.[66] However, Subway bread has so much sugar it legally cannot be defined as bread in certain jurisdictions.[67] If mandatory EIL labelling was introduced, Subway would likely have a positive EIL, which can be mistaken by consumers to also mean Subway is nutritionally healthy.[68] If clear guidance is not provided to consumers, EIL could cause an increase in the purchases of sustainable products that are unhealthy.

Finally, EIL may be misleading where corporations can manipulate consumers by using “greenwashing” tactics. This refers to the practice of corporations spending more time and resources marketing themselves as environmentally-friendly, instead of actually minimising their impact.[69] This is as companies can charge a premium on greenwashed products, as consumers are willing to pay more for “sustainable” products.[70] For example, in Australia, corporations have been able to affix a 7.9% premium on products when the word “organic” is used on the label.[71] However, studies suggest that less than 1% of environmental claims on Australian food products can be substantiated.[72] Thus, a mandatory EIL scheme without stringent regulations to check the accuracy of information provided by companies could increase the occurrence of greenwashing.[73]

2 Economic Pressure

While mandatory EIL may make the food industry revise its’ practices and encourage innovation, it may also place economic strain on the industry in two ways. Additionally, Section III explores further potential issues that may create economic pressure. This includes the potential legal issues which will raise the cost of compliance for producers and manufacturers, as well as issues with international trade law where EILs may act as a non-tariff barrier to trade.[74]

First, EIL may result in a loss of employment.[75] This is as certain companies may struggle to keep up with their competitors, who may have greater means to innovate and improve the sustainability of their practices.[76] This is particularly problematic for many developing countries, where food production/manufacturing employs the majority of citizens.[77] Although trends suggest unemployment is inevitable due to a growing shift towards sustainable jobs,[78] the potential short-term economic strain on producers/manufacturers should still be addressed.

Secondly, given the studies which suggest EILs encourage consumers to become more environmentally conscious,[79] a mandatory EIL scheme may increase the demand for sustainably-produced foods and consequently, the prices for sustainable food. Currently, more sustainable practices such as organic farming only make up 1% of international farmlands,[80] where many such practices are still not entirely sustainable.[81] Thus, a rapid increase in demand for sustainably produced foods which already compromise of a minority of the food market would increase prices for sustainable foods,[82] making sustainable foods only accessible for wealthier demographics. Furthermore, if sustainable producers/manufacturers are unable to make the appropriate preparations before a mandatory EIL scheme is introduced, this could disadvantage consumers who may no longer be able to afford to purchase sustainable foods.

3 Discouraging Consumers from Purchasing Certain Foods

A mandatory EIL scheme has the potential to discourage consumers from purchasing certain foods, inadvertently negatively impacting their health and eroding culture. This is particularly where certain foods are difficult or impossible to produce sustainably. For example, various fruits such as bananas are relatively unsustainable to produce, using 860L of water to produce 1kg.[83] Consumers with limited education in nutrition could incorrectly substitute these fruits for foods with a more positive EIL, and thus negatively impact their health, such as accidentally becoming vitamin deficient.[84] Another example is rice, which is a food staple with deep cultural significance in Asia.[85] Although improvements have been made to production mechanisms,[86] rice still accounts for a third of the world’s freshwater use yearly.[87] If EIL was mandated, consumers could be stigmatised for consuming foods that are important culturally but have a negative EIL.[88] A mandatory EIL scheme must be careful to ensure that each product’s label appropriately contextualises the food’s benefits and shortcomings.[89]

4 The Case Against Government Intervention

Arguably, EILs should not be mandated as the government should refrain from interfering with business practices and the free market.[90] It is argued that it is not the government’s responsibility to address climate change,[91] where the onus should fall on consumers to conduct their own research. This is particularly as the benefits of mandatory EIL on consumer behaviour are arguably overestimated. This is where the benefits are limited to consumers who are already environmentally conscious,[92] where consumers with little or no interest in sustainability are typically unaffected by EIL.[93] Thus, although the majority of consumers support sustainable consumption,[94] this may not translate into sustainable purchases on a wider scale. Additionally, economic theories further suggest that EIL is rarely effective in redressing climate change and is more suited to alleviating problems of information asymmetries.[95] It is thus arguable that government resources should not be wasted on EIL when its’ benefits are seemingly limited.

C Evaluation

While there are valid arguments against requiring EILs on packs, many of these arguments can be mitigated by a robust EIL scheme which prevents these issues from occurring. For example, producers/manufacturers may be notified in advance of the implementation of the EIL scheme to prevent economic pressure, and the ACCC’s regulatory powers can be strengthened to ensure companies do not greenwash or engage in misleading and deceptive conduct. Furthermore, it is arguable that the urgent need for the food industry to address climate change is more important than the preservation of the free market. This is particularly where there are a myriad of areas in which we regulate the free market to protect against various kinds of risks,[96] especially against health and safety risks which climate change poses.[97] Thus, the benefits of EIL arguably outweigh the potential issues that may arise, and should be mandated with these safeguards implemented.

IV USING LEGAL AND PRACTICAL CHALLENGES TO HEALTH LABELLING WORLDWIDE, WHAT ARE SOME OF THE LIKELY CHALLENGES FACING AUSTRALIAN POLICYMAKERS’ INTEREST IN THIS POLICY?

A Legal Challenges

The key legal challenges will be discussed in this section, being the difficulties in defining “environmental impact” and creating the framework for a mandatory EIL scheme.

1 Defining “Environmental Impact”

In creating an EIL scheme, there is a legal challenge in defining “environmental impact”. “Environmental impact” is generally understood to refer to a person/group’s carbon footprint.[98] However, there are many ways the food industry impacts the environment, which should be considered in defining “environmental impact”. Without considering all such factors, an EIL scheme can be misleading, as the production/manufacturing of food may produce minimal carbon emissions but degrade the environment in other ways. In addition to carbon footprint, three additional factors should be considered in the definition of “environmental impact”.

First, consideration should be given as to whether the production/manufacturing process of the food has damaged biodiversity and ecosystems. For example, apples have one of the lowest carbon emissions in terms of fruit.[99] However, apples have created immense damage to the biodiversity and ecosystems of the environments in which they are farmed due to the widespread use of fertilisers, pesticides and herbicides in the production process.[100] Thus, a mandatory EIL should consider including information on biodiversity loss or ecosystem damage caused by a food’s production/manufacturing processes.

Secondly, another factor to consider is whether the food was produced in a region abundant with resources. For example, almond milk produces less than a third of the carbon emissions that are produced in the manufacturing of cow’s milk.[101] However, 1L of almond milk requires approximately 6,000L of water to produce,[102] where the majority of global almond milk production occurs in California which is notoriously drought-stricken.[103] Therefore, a mandatory EIL should consider whether the area/s in which the food was produced/manufactured, and if it has further degraded a region’s resources.

Thirdly, another factor to consider is the stage of the food cycle in which the environmental impact assessment (“EIA”) should be conducted. An EIA conducted earlier in the food cycle, rather than later, can result in a deceptively positive EIL. For example, cabbage has low carbon emissions and water usage during the farming and manufacturing stages of their production cycle.[104] Should the EIA be conducted right after the manufacturing stage, the EILs for cabbage would be quite positive. However, this would not account for the impacts of transportation, which would cause a significant difference for the EILs of international versus domestic cabbage.[105] Additionally, the environmental impact of processing of any food waste would not be considered. The processing of food waste, which produces high carbon emissions, can often be more environmentally detrimental than the production/manufacturing of the food itself.[106] Thus, a failure to consider all stages of the food cycle when defining “environmental impact” may result in inaccurate EILs.

In the past, EIL schemes have attempted to include social policy goals in their definition of “environmental impact”, due to their significant overlap. This includes food sovereignty considerations, such as whether the food is culturally acceptable, economically accessible and environmentally sustainable.[107] Labels such as FairTrade have attempted to address this overlap. However, FairTrade has now split into multiple different labels, due to the difficulty of simultaneously assessing environmental impact and social policy considerations.[108] This is especially as food sovereignty groups typically have a grassroots approach to environmental sustainability,[109] which is difficult to reconcile with the use of EIL as a market-based instrument.[110] Thus, attempting to combine both environmental sustainability concerns and social policy goals in a mandatory EIL scheme is likely too difficult. However, these differing approaches by organisations to address environmental sustainability are an interesting and alternative way of implementing EIL.

In defining “environmental impact”, a holistic approach should be taken which includes all the ways the food industry impacts the environment, as listed above. Without a multi-faced approach, an EIL may be an inaccurate reflection of the true “environmental impact” of a product, which could wrongfully punish and damage the reputation of producers/manufacturers whose practices may actually be environmentally sustainable.

2 Creating the Framework

In determining the scope of a mandatory EIL scheme, there is a legal challenge in determining the framework in which the scheme would operate.

The first issue is if an EIL scheme should be mandatory, and if so, which groups within the food industry must comply. This essay argues for a compulsory scheme, as opt-in/voluntary labelling schemes have been historically ineffective. This is as companies merely pick and choose the products they label,[111] where they simply do not label the products which would have “unfavourable” ratings. An additional consideration is whether all foods should be included, or if a mandatory EIL scheme should only apply to certain food groups. Ideally, all foods would be included under a mandatory EIL scheme. However, picking one food group to be labelled first would help to facilitate a smooth transition to all foods governed under a mandatory EIL scheme.[112] By picking a group such as vegetables which are relatively simple in production/manufacturing, the scheme can be tested, where any issues can be identified and rectified before a larger EIL scheme is rolled out.

The second issue is who will regulate a mandatory EIL scheme. This essay argues that a new government body which works in conjunction with FSANZ and the ACCC should be created to regulate the scheme for two main reasons. First, a government body would be independent from the food industry and could enforce the EIL scheme without potential conflicts of interest. This would prevent issues that frequently occur with industries that attempt to self-regulate, such as bribery, corruption and a lack of independent auditing.[113] Secondly, a government body could appoint people with relevant expertise and experience to create an EIL scheme. This is where current regulations, such as the ACCC’s laws on misleading and deceptive conduct, or the generalised environmental provisions in the EPBCA,[114] lack the nuance required for a mandatory EIL scheme. The new government body could freshly determine the appropriate requirements and processes for obtaining an EIL, such as fees, how the accuracy of information provided by corporations will be checked and the repercussions of non-compliance, such as penalties or fines. By creating a new government body to mandate an EIL scheme, this ensures transparency in the EIL scheme, which is tailored to address the unique legal complexities of EIL.

The third issue is defining “environmental impact”. As discussed, a holistic approach should be taken in an EIA, such as considering carbon footprint, degradation of biodiversity and ecosystems, and where the food was produced/manufactured.

The last issue is the format of the label. Labelling schemes have had many formats, such as detailed tables or symbol systems such as “traffic lights”.[115] Symbol systems have incurred issues with being oversimplified, where key information is omitted and the resulting label is thus misleading.[116] However, systems such as detailed tables have been too complex for the average consumer to correctly interpret.[117] Additionally, while labelling schemes tend to be either “positive” or “negative”, such as the Certified Green “tick of approval”, [118] versus Mexico’s use of “warning signs”,[119] a more nuanced approach should be taken with EILs. Given the variety of ways a corporation can impact the environment, such factors should be considered separately, rather than being amalgamated into one “rating” which may be deceptive. For example, a company could receive a “biodiversity-friendly” sticker but fail to receive a “carbon-neutral” sticker. Ideally, a mandatory EIL scheme would include a combination of both detailed information and symbols to cater to all consumers.

In implementing a mandatory EIL scheme, there must be a clear structure, competent regulator and robust criteria for determining “environmental impact” to help to ensure the effectiveness of the scheme.

B Practical Challenges

The key practical challenges will be discussed in this section, being the impacts on trade and cross-jurisdictional issues, and the opposition of lobbyists and the need to ensure the effectiveness of the scheme.

1 Impact on Trade and Cross-Jurisdictional Issues

A mandatory EIL scheme is likely to have an impact on Australian trade, in the importing and exporting of food. This is as extensive EIL requirements have the potential to damage relationships with multi-national corporations who are typically against labelling, as discussed in the next section. Additionally, imposing extensive EIL requirements may also damage relationships with countries which have been historically environmentally unsustainable, such as China.[120] Where Chinese-Australian trade relations are at an all-time low,[121] implementing a mandatory EIL scheme may cause political tension and trading halts,[122] resulting in a shortage of food. Additionally, as Australia already has a relatively strict import/export regime compared to the rest of the world,[123] food producers/manufacturers from developing countries may struggle to compete in the Australian market if further mandatory EIL requirements are introduced.[124] This may result in food producers/manufacturers attempting to “cut corners” on their processes to try to comply with Australian standards,[125] leading to potential health and safety concerns.[126] Thus, there is a need to balance the goals of environmental sustainability in a mandatory EIL scheme, with trade relations.

Another practical challenge of implementing EIL is the issue of cross-jurisdictional compliance. Where there are differences in EIL schemes in-between countries, this can cause compliance issues for multi-national corporations, who may have to incur high costs to adhere to multiple different laws and regulations.[127] Furthermore, given that climate change is a global issue, it raises the question as to the extent in which an Australian EIL scheme should be compatible with other countries’ EIL policies and the recommendations of international organisations. Where Australia has adopted ISO14020 under WHO’s ISO Type I/II/III EIL,[128] other countries could similarly implement ISO standards. Additionally, using tools such as the UN’s Codex international food arbitration services can further help to coordinate a global strategy for EIL.[129]

2 Opposition of Lobbyists and Ensuring the Effectiveness of the Scheme

A key practical challenge is overcoming the lobbying of the food industry, where many farmers, manufacturers and other industry heavyweights are likely to oppose a mandatory EIL scheme. This is as labels can deter consumers away from non-environmentally sustainable food producers/manufacturers, creating a loss in revenue.[130] Additionally, farmers and corporations would have to implement costly measures to change practices and innovate to keep up with competitors.[131] The high costs for compliance with EIL schemes should not be under-estimated, where Tesco’s carbon-labelling scheme was ultimately discontinued due to their unsustainable expenditure on compliance requirements.[132]

The food industry would likely protest against a mandatory EIL scheme, given the historical dislike of labels by BigFood companies and their use of their economic and political power to lobby against various labelling schemes.[133] These conglomerates have been previously successful in “watering-down” unfavourable policies, such as their $1 billion investment into fighting the EU’s “Traffic Light” EIL scheme, which resulted in the abandonment of the scheme.[134] Even companies who have already introduced EIL on some products are likely to oppose mandatory EIL, as this would expose their other products which are not environmentally sustainable.[135] While there may be an increase in profits for their sustainable products, this is outweighed by the potential losses incurred.[136] Thus, efforts must be spent to ensure lobbyists do not attempt to substitute a comprehensive and robust EIL scheme with ineffective replacements and alternatives.

Upon overcoming the aforementioned legal and practical challenges, the final practical challenge is ensuring the EIL scheme is effective in changing the processes and habits of corporations and consumers.[137] Many of the practical challenges have been discussed in this essay already, such as ensuring the accuracy of the information on an EIL,[138] or preventing consumers from being misled.[139] An EIL scheme must have stringent requirements and sufficient resources to regulate a large food industry. Public education campaigns must also occur so consumers understand the scheme and change their purchasing behaviours.[140]

Further, to overcome the practical challenges of implementing a mandatory EIL scheme, there should be a transition period in which there is staged implementation. For example, as mentioned, vegetables may be trialled first, or a “carbon-neutral” sticker could be tested first before adding other symbols such as “biodiversity-friendly”. Additionally, notice should be given to the food industry of when the EIL scheme will take effect, to prevent issues such as an increase in food prices as discussed.[141] The government should also provide financial and organisational assistance to help with the costs of compliance,[142] to allow food producers/manufacturers to shift smoothly.

V CONCLUSION

There are various disadvantages to a mandatory EIL scheme such as its’ potential to erode culture or place an economic strain on the food industry, as well as significant legal and practical challenges that must be overcome should a mandatory scheme be implemented. However, many of these disadvantages and challenges can be mitigated with the development of thorough policies and regulations. A sophisticated mandatory EIL scheme could reduce the contribution of the food industry to climate change and encourage consumers to make sustainable choices. These benefits outweigh any residual disadvantages that are not already mitigated by a sophisticated EIL scheme. Thus, mandatory EIL has the potential to be successful and should be implemented as part of a global effort towards sustainable practices.

VI BIBLIOGRAPHY

A Articles/Books/Reports

Al-Rumaihi, Aisha et al, ‘Environmental impact assessment of food waste management using two composting techniques’ (2020) 12(4) Sustainability 1595

Ar, Ilker ‘The impact of green product innovation on firm performance and competitive capability’ (2012) 62 Social and Behavioural Sciences 854

Bougherar, Douadia, Gilles Grolleau and Luc Thiebaut, ‘Can labelling policies do more harm than good?’ (Research Paper, Centre of Economics and Sociology France, 2003)

Bran, Florina, ‘The role of financial assistance in the implementation of environmental policy’ (2009) 1(1) Knowledge Management Research & Practice 58

Brouwer, Anne, ‘Revealing greenwashing: a consumer’s perspective’ (Research Paper, La Trobe University, 2016)

Brown, Kerry, ‘The future of environmental sustainability labelling on food products’ (2020) 4(4) The Lancet Planetary Health 137

Bruhl, Carsten and Johann Zaller, ‘Biodiversity decline as a consequence of an inappropriate environment risk assessment of pesticides’ (2019) 7(177) Frontiers in Environmental Science 1

Butler, Colin ‘Climate change, health and existential risks to civilisation’ (2018) 15(10) International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Research 2266

Cao, Wenbin, Hui Wang and Huihui Ying, ‘The effect of environmental regulation on employment in resource-based areas of China’ (2017) 14(12) International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 1598

Castka, Pavel and Charles Corbett, ‘Governance of eco-labels’ (2015) 135(2) Journal of Business Ethics 1

Cecchini, Michele and Ludovic Warin, ‘Impact of food labelling systems on food choices and eating behaviours’ (2015) 17(3) Obesity Reviews 201

Clare, Greg, ‘Measuring consumer responses to food labels’ (2018) 2(1) Journal of Integrative Food Sciences & Nutrition 7

Clark, Kate, ‘The social, economic and environmental benefits of cultural heritage’ (Essay, Australian Government Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment, 2011) 1

Czarnezki, Jason, ‘The neo-liberal turn in environmental regulation’ (2016) 1(1) Utah Law Review 1

D’Souza, Clare et al, ‘Green decisions: Demographics and consumer understanding of environmental labels’ (2007) International Journal of Consumer Studies 341

de Freitas Netto, Sebastiao Vieira et al, ‘Concepts and forms of greenwashing’ (2020) 32(19) Environmental Sciences Europe 1

Delmas, Magali and Neil Lessem, ‘Eco-premium or eco-penalty?’ (2017) 56(2) Business & Society 1

Donga, Gautam and Naresh Patel, ‘A review of research studies on factors affecting consumers’ use of nutritional labels’ (2018) 7(3) Nutrition & Food Science International Journal 1

Dugan, Mary ‘Rice’ (2015) 16(3) Journal of Agricultural & Food Information 1540

Edelman, Marc et al, ‘Critical perspectives on food sovereignty’ (2014) 41(6) Journal of Peasant Studies 911

Engel, Stefanie ‘Overcompliance, labelling and lobbying’ (2006) 11(2) Environmental Modelling & Assessment 115

Fankhaeser, Samuel et al, ‘Climate change, innovation and jobs’ (2011) 8(4) Climate Policy 421

Ferranti, Pasquale, Elliot Berry and Anderson Jock, ‘Encyclopedia of Food Security and Sustainability’ (Elsevier Science, 1st ed, 2019) 17

Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations, ‘Water footprint of the banana industry’ (Report, World Banana Forum, 2017)

Fragniere, Augustin ‘Climate change and individual duties’ (2016) 7(6) WIRES Climate Change 1

Francis, Charles et al, ‘Food webs and food sovereignty’ (2013) 2(4) Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems and Community Development 95

Frankowska, Angelina, Harish Jeswani and Asidsa Azpagic, ‘Environmental impacts of vegetable consumption in the UK’ (2019) 782 Science of the Total Environment 80

Fulton, Julian, Michael Norton and Fraser Shilling, ‘Water-indexed benefits and impacts of California almonds’ (2019) 96(1) Ecological Indicators 711

Gallastegui, Ibon ‘The use of eco-labels: A review of the literature’ (2002) 12 European Environment 316

Golan, Elise et al, ‘Economics of food labelling’ (2001) 24 Journal of Consumer Policy 117

Gostin, Lawrence, ‘BigFood is making America sick’ (2016) 94(3) The Milbank Quarterly 480

Granatstein, David, ‘How big is the fruit growing footprint?’ (Essay, Washington State University, 2007)

Grankvist, Gunne, Ulf Dahlstrand and Anders Biel, ‘The impact of environmental labelling on consumer preference’ (2004) 27(2) Journal of Consumer Policy 213

Guthman, Julie, ‘The Polanyian Way – Voluntary food labels as neoliberal governance’ (2007) 39(3) Antipode 456

Haas, Rainer et al, ‘Cow milk versus plant-based milk substitutes’ (2019) 11(18) Sustainability 5046

Hahnel, Ulf et al, ‘The power of putting a label on it: green labels weigh heavier than contradicting product information for consumers’ purchase decisions and post-purchase behaviour’ (2015) 6 Frontiers in Psychology 1392

Hantke-Domas, Michael, ‘The public interest theory of regulation: non-existence or misinterpretation?’ (2003) 15 European Journal of Law and Economics 165

High Level Meeting On Climate and Sustainable Development, GA Res 12131, UN GAOR, 73rd sess, (28 March 2019)

Hoekstra, Arjen ‘Water for food’ (Swedish Research Council for Environmental, Agricultural Sciences and Spatial Planning, 2008) 49

Horst, Megan Nathan McClintock and Lesli Hoey, ‘The intersection of planning, urban agriculture and food justice’ (2017) 83(3) Journal of American Planning Association 277

Hussey, Karen et al, ‘Australia, the EU and the New Trade Agenda’ (Australian National University, 2017)

Johnstone, Micael-Lee and Lay Peng Tan, ‘Exploring the gap between consumers’ green rhetoric and purchasing behaviour’ (2015) 132(2) Journal of Business Ethics 311

Jha, Veena, Rene Vossenaar and Simonette Zarrili, Eco-Labelling and International Trade (Palgrave Macmillian, 1st ed, 1997)

Kaczorowska, Joanna et al, ‘Impact of food sustainability labels on the perceived product value and price expectations of urban customers’ (2019) 11(24) Frontiers in Psychology 7240

Kan, Haidong, ‘Environment and health in China’ (2009) 117(12) Environment Health Perspective 530

Koen, Nelene, Renee Blaauw and Edelweiss Wentzel-Viljoen, ‘Food and nutritional labelling’ (2016) 29(1) South African Journal of Clinical Nutrition 13

Lando, Amy and Serena Lo, ‘Single large portion size and dual column nutritional labelling may help consumers make more healthful food choices’ (2013) 113(2) Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics 241

Laroche, Michel, Jasmin Bergeron and Guido Barbaro-Forleo, ‘Targeting consumers who are willing to pay more for environmentally friendly products’ (2001) 18(6) Journal of Consumer Marketing 503

Macintosh, Andrew ‘Plastic bag bans: Lessons from the Australian Capital Territory’ (2020) 154 Resources, Conservation and Recycling 1

McCluskey, Jill and Jason Winfree, ‘The economics of GM labelling and implications for trade’ (2017) 15(1) Journal of Agricultural & Food Industrial Organisation 1

Messer, Kent, Marco Costanigro and Harry Kaiser, ‘Labelling food processes: the good, the bad and the ugly’ (2017) 39(3) Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy 1

Minkov, Nikolay et al, ‘Characterisation of environmental labels beyond the criteria of ISO14020 series’ (2020) 25 The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 1

Modelo, Manel, ‘The paradox of FairTrade’ (2014) 12(1) Stanford Social Innovation Review 1

Ni Mhurchu, Cliona, Helen Eyles and Yeun-Hyang Choi, ‘Effects of a voluntary front-of-pack nutrition labelling system on packaged food reformation’ (2017) 9(8) Nutrients 918

Nieto, Claudia et al, ‘Understanding the use of food labelling systems amount whites and Latinos in the US and among Mexicans’ (2019) 16 International Journal of Behavioural Nutrition and Physical Activity 87

Oakdene Hollins Research & Consulting, ‘EU EcoLabel for food and feed products’ (Report, European Commission, October 2011) 48

Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances, ‘Environmental labelling issues, policies and practices worldwide’ (Report, United States Environmental Protection Agency, December 1998) 34

Oh, Myounjin et al, ‘Does eco-innovation drive sales and technology investment?’ (2020) Business Strategy and the Environment 1

Oxfam International, ‘More rice for the people, more water for the planet’ (Report, Global Freshwater Programme, 2010) 4

Paavola, Jouni, ‘Health impacts of climate change and health and social inequalities in the UK’ (2017) 16(113) Environmental Health 61

Page, Edward, ‘Distributing the burdens of climate change’ (2008) 17(4) Environmental Politics 556

Paull, John, ‘Price premiums for organic food from Australia and China’ (Research Paper, Australia National University, 2008)

Porter, Donna et al, ‘Nutritional Labelling’ (Institute of US Medicine, 1990)

Ritchie, Hannah and Max Roser, ‘Environmental impacts of food production’ (Research Paper, Oxford University, January 2020) 2

Roser, Max ‘Employment in agriculture’ (Research Paper, Oxford University, 2020)

Samnegard, Ulrika et al, ‘Management trade-offs on ecosystem services in apple orchards’ (2018) 56(4) Journal of Applied Ecology 802

Scrinis, Gyorgy, ‘BigFood corporations and the nutritional marketing and regulation of processed foods’ (2015) 2(2) Canadian Food Studies 136

Shangguan, Siyi et al, ‘A meta-analysis of food labelling effects on consumer diet behaviours and industry practices’ 56(2) American Journal of Preventative Medicine 300

Slapo, Helena and Knut Karevold, ‘Simple eco-labels to nudge customers toward the most environmentally friendly warm dishes’ (2019) 3(40) Frontiers on Sustainable Food Systems 1

Sundar, Aparna and Frank Kardes, ‘The role of perceived variability and the health halo effect in nutritional inference and consumption’ (2015) 32(5) Psychology and Marketing 512

Sutherland, Chelsea et al, ‘Consumer insights on Canada’s food safety and food risk system’ (2020) 2 Journal of Agriculture and Food Research 1

Talati, Zenobia et al, ‘Do health claims and front-of-pack labels lead to a positivity bias in unhealthy foods?’ (2016) 8(12) Nutrient 787

Taufique, Khan et al, ‘Integrating general environmental knowledge and eco-label knowledge’ (2016) 37 Procedia Economics and Finance 39

Thow, Anne et al, ‘Increasing the public health voice in global decision making on nutritional labelling’ (2020) 16(3) Globalisation and Health 1

Thow, Anne et al, ‘Nutrition labelling is a trade policy issue’ (2017) 33(4) Health Promotion International 561

Thurlow, Crispin and Adam Jaworski, ‘Introducing elite discourse: the rhetorics of status, privilege and power’ (2017) 27(3) Social Semiotics 243

Tuomisto, Hanna, Ian Hodge, Philip Riordan and David Macdonald, ‘Does organic farming reduce environmental impacts?’ (2012) 112(2) Journal of Environmental Management 309

Uphoff, Norman and Frank Dazzo, ‘Making rice production more environmentally friendly’ (2016) 3(2) Environments 1

Vincent, Steve ‘The emotional labour process’ (2011) 64(10) Human Relations 1

Viscusi, William, ‘Regulation of Health, Safety and Environmental Risks’ (Discussion Paper No 544, Harvard Law School, 2006)

Waterlander, Wilma et al, ‘The effect of food price changes on consumer purchases’ (2019) 4(8) The Lancent Public Health 394

Weismann, Miriam, ‘The failure of the self-regulatory model of corporate governance in the global business environment’ (2009) 88(4) Journal of Business Ethics 615

White, Katherine, Rishad Habib and David Hardisty, ‘How to shift consumer behaviours to be more sustainable’ (2019) 83(3) Journal of Marketing 22

White, Marial and Simon Barquera, ‘Mexico adopts food warning labels’ (2020) 6(1) Health Systems & Reform 1

Wijen, Frank and Mireille Chiroleu-Assouline, ‘Controversy over voluntary environmental standards’ (2019) 32(2) Organisation and Environment 98

Xu, Elaine and Terence Lee, ‘Communicative and global impacts of food labels: An Australian study’ (2019) 175(1) Media International Australia 93

Yale Program on Climate Change Communication, ‘Knowing of climate change across global warming’s six Americas’ (Report, Yale University, 2010)

B Legislation

Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code (Cth)

Consumer and Competition Act 2010 (Cth) Sch 2

Food Standards Australia New Zealand Act 1991 (Cth)

Food Standards Australia New Zealand Regulations 1994 (Cth)

Country of Original Food Labeling Information Standard 2016 (Cth)

Environment Protection and Biodiversity Consideration Act 1998 (Cth)

C Other

Associated Press, ‘Subway bread isn’t bread, court rules’, Australian Financial Review (online, 2 October 2018) <https://www.afr.com/world/europe/subway-bread-isn-t-bread-court-rules-20201002-p5619x>

Big Room Inc., ‘All ecolabels in Australia’, Ecolabel Index (Website) <http://www.ecolabelindex.com/ecolabels/?st=country,au>

Byskov, Morten, ‘Focusing on how individuals can help is very convenient for corporations’, The Conversation (online, 20 January 2019) <https://theconversation.com/climate-change-focusing-on-how-individuals-can-help-is-very-convenient-for-corporations-108546>

Campbell, Brian and James Veteto, ‘Free seeds and food sovereignty’ (2015) 22(1) Journal of Political Ecology 445

Corry, Trish, ‘Environmental elitism and the inconsequential worker’, Australian Independent Media (online, 15 June 2017) <https://theaimn.com/72465-2/>

Dhinsa, Harvinder, ‘Kellogg’s changes palm oil policy after sisters’ petition’, BBC News (online, 19 February 2018) <https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-51551431>

Lawrence, Mark and Christina Pollard, ‘Food labels are about informing choice, not some nanny state’, The Conversation (online, 26 February 2014) <https://theconversation.com/food-labels-are-about-informing-choice-not-some-nanny-state-23320>

Lucas, Amelia, ‘Panera Bread becomes first national chain to label entrees as climate friendly’, CNBC (online, 14 October 2020) <https://www.cnbc.com/2020/10/14/panera-bread-to-label-entrees-as-climate-friendly.html>

Mowbray, John, ‘Bangladesh shouldn’t cut corners on sustainability’, EcoTextile News (Website, 6 April 2020) <https://www.ecotextile.com/2020040625924/materials-production-news/bangladesh-shouldn-t-cut-corners-on-sustainability.html>

Nader, Carol, ‘$330,000 buys Maccas the tick of approval’, The Age (online, 6 February 2007) <https://www.theage.com.au/national/330-000-buys-maccas-the-tick-of-approval-20070206-ge45p2.html>

Nelson, Angela, ‘6 ways our partners practice sustainable farming’, Subway (Website, 31 August 2018) <https://www.subway.com/en-us/subculture/ways-our-partners-practice-sustainable-farming>

Quackenbush, Casey, ‘Denmark wants food labels to include environmental impact’, Time Magazine (online, 9 October 2018) <https://time.com/5419208/denmark-food-label-climate/>

Smith, Michael et al, ‘China targets $6b of Australian exports in fresh campaign’, Australian Financial Review (online, 3 November 2020) <https://www.afr.com/world/asia/china-targets-6-bln-of-australian-exports-in-fresh-coercian-campaign-20201103-p56ayx>

Starr, Douglas, ‘Just 90 companies are to blame for most climate change’, Science Magazine (online, 25 August 2016) <https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/08/just-90-companies-are-blame-most-climate-change-carbon-accountant-says>

United Nations Environment Programme, ‘Eco-labelling’, Resource Efficiency (Website) <https://www.unenvironment.org/explore-topics/resource-efficiency/what-we-do/responsible-industry/eco-labelling>

Vaughan, Adam, ‘Tesco drops carbon-label pledge’, The Guardian (online, 21 January 2012) <https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/jan/30/tesco-drops-carbon-labelling>

Washington, Stuart and Alexandra Smith, ‘Supermarket food labels mislead shoppers’, Sydney Morning Herald (online, 26 December 2011) <https://www.smh.com.au/business/supermarket-food-labels-mislead-shoppers-20111225-1p9ld.html>


[1] The Question.

[2] The Question.

[3] Clare D’Souza et al, ‘Green decisions: Demographics and consumer understanding of environmental labels’ (2007) International Journal of Consumer Studies 341, 342 (‘Green decisions’).

[4] Elaine Xu and Terence Lee, ‘Communicative and global impacts of food labels: An Australian study’ (2019) 175(1) Media International Australia 93, 94.

[5] Hannah Ritchie and Max Roser, ‘Environmental impacts of food production’ (Research Paper, Oxford University, January 2020) 2 (‘Environmental impacts of food production’).

[6] High Level Meeting On Climate and Sustainable Development, GA Res 12131, UN GAOR, 73rd sess, (28 March 2019) (‘GA Res 12131’).

[7] Ibon Gallastegui, ‘The use of eco-labels: A review of the literature’ (2002) 12 European Environment 316 (‘The use of eco-labels’).

[8] Ibid 317.

[9] Joanna Kaczorowska et al, ‘Impact of food sustainability labels on the perceived product value and price expectations of urban customers’ (2019) 11(24) Frontiers in Psychology 7240, 7253 (‘Impact of food sustainability labels’); The use of eco-labels (n 7) 324.

[10] Michel Laroche, Jasmin Bergeron and Guido Barbaro-Forleo, ‘Targeting consumers who are willing to pay more for environmentally friendly products’ (2001) 18(6) Journal of Consumer Marketing 503, 514 (‘Targeting consumers’).

[11] Charles Francis et al, ‘Food webs and food sovereignty’ (2013) 2(4) Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems and Community Development 95, 98.

[12] Consumer and Competition Act 2010 (Cth) Sch 2; Food Standards Australia New Zealand Act 1991 (Cth); Food Standards Australia New Zealand Regulations 1994 (Cth); Country of Original Food Labeling Information Standard 2016 (Cth).

[13] Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code (Cth) Standard 1.2.1.

[14] Consumer and Competition Act 2010 (Cth) Sch 2.

[15] Environment Protection and Biodiversity Consideration Act 1998 (Cth).

[16] Big Room Inc., ‘All ecolabels in Australia’, EcoLabel Index (Website) <http://www.ecolabelindex.com/ecolabels/?st=country,au> (‘EcoLabel index’).

[17] United Nations Environment Programme, ‘Eco-labelling’, Resource Efficiency (Website) <https://www.unenvironment.org/explore-topics/resource-efficiency/what-we-do/responsible-industry/eco-labelling>.

[18] Casey Quackenbush, ‘Denmark wants food labels to include environmental impact’, Time Magazine (online, 9 October 2018) <https://time.com/5419208/denmark-food-label-climate/>.

[19] Amelia Lucas, ‘Panera Bread becomes first national chain to label entrees as climate friendly’, CNBC (online, 14 October 2020) <https://www.cnbc.com/2020/10/14/panera-bread-to-label-entrees-as-climate-friendly.html>.

[20] Adam Vaughan, ‘Tesco drops carbon-label pledge’, The Guardian (online, 21 January 2012) <https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/jan/30/tesco-drops-carbon-labelling>.

[21] Environmental impacts of food production (n 5).

[22] Edward Page, ‘Distributing the burdens of climate change’ (2008) 17(4) Environmental Politics 556.

[23] Carsten Bruhl and Johann Zaller, ‘Biodiversity decline as a consequence of an inappropriate environment risk assessment of pesticides’ (2019) 7(177) Frontiers in Environmental Science 1.

[24] Kerry Brown, ‘The future of environmental sustainability labelling on food products’ (2020) 4(4) The Lancet Planetary Health 137, 138.

[25] Environmental impacts of food production (n 5).

[26] Magali Delmas and Neil Lessem, ‘Eco-premium or eco-penalty?’ (2017) 56(2) Business & Society 1, 2.

[27] Helena Slapo and Knut Karevold, ‘Simple eco-labels to nudge customers toward the most environmentally friendly warm dishes’ (2019) 3(40) Frontiers on Sustainable Food Systems 1.

[28] Impact of food sustainability labels (n 9) 7253; The use of eco-labels (n 7) 324.

[29] Douglas Starr, ‘Just 90 companies are to blame for most climate change’, Science Magazine (online, 25 August 2016) <https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/08/just-90-companies-are-blame-most-climate-change-carbon-accountant-says>; Morten Byskov, ‘Focusing on how individuals can help is very convenient for corporations’, The Conversation (online, 20 January 2019) <https://theconversation.com/climate-change-focusing-on-how-individuals-can-help-is-very-convenient-for-corporations-108546>.

[30] Targeting consumers (n 10) 515.

[31] Harvinder Dhinsa, ‘Kellogg’s changes palm oil policy after sisters’ petition’, BBC News (online, 19 February 2018) <https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-51551431>.

[32] Ibid.

[33] Michele Cecchini and Ludovic Warin, ‘Impact of food labelling systems on food choices and eating behaviours’ (2015) 17(3) Obesity Reviews 201.

[34] Ulf Hahnel et al, ‘The power of putting a label on it: green labels weigh heavier than contradicting product information for consumers’ purchase decisions and post-purchase behaviour’ (2015) 6 Frontiers in Psychology 1392 (‘The power of putting a label on it’).

[35] Myounjin Oh et al, ‘Does eco-innovation drive sales and technology investment?’ (2020) Business Strategy and the Environment 1.

[36] Claudia Nieto et al, ‘Understanding the use of food labelling systems amount whites and Latinos in the US and among Mexicans’ (2019) 16 International Journal of Behavioural Nutrition and Physical Activity 87.

[37] Ilker Ar, ‘The impact of green product innovation on firm performance and competitive capability’ (2012) 62 Social and Behavioural Sciences 854, 857.

[38] Targeting consumers (n 10).

[39] Micael-Lee Johnstone and Lay Peng Tan, ‘Exploring the gap between consumers’ green rhetoric and purchasing behaviour’ (2015) 132(2) Journal of Business Ethics 311, 313.

[40] Green decisions (n 3) 373.

[41] Ibid.

[42] Impact of food sustainability labels (n 9) 7240.

[43] Greg Clare, ‘Measuring consumer responses to food labels’ (2018) 2(1) Journal of Integrative Food Sciences & Nutrition 7, 9.

[44] Amy Lando and Serena Lo, ‘Single large portion size and dual column nutritional labelling may help consumers make more healthful food choices’ (2013) 113(2) Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics 241.

[45] Siyi Shangguan et al, ‘A meta-analysis of food labelling effects on consumer diet behaviours and industry practices’ 56(2) American Journal of Preventative Medicine 300.

[46] Katherine White, Rishad Habib and David Hardisty, ‘How to shift consumer behaviours to be more sustainable’ (2019) 83(3) Journal of Marketing 22, 28 (‘How to shift consumer behaviours’); The power of putting a label on it (n 34).

[47] Targeting consumers (n 10).

[48] Frank Wijen and Mireille Chiroleu-Assouline, ‘Controversy over voluntary environmental standards’ (2019) 32(2) Organisation and Environment 98, 103.

[49] Pavel Castka and Charles Corbett, ‘Governance of eco-labels’ (2015) 135(2) Journal of Business Ethics 1, 2.

[50] GA Res 12131 (n 6).

[51] Michael Hantke-Domas, ‘The public interest theory of regulation: non existence or misinterpretation?’ (2003) 15 European Journal of Law and Economics 165.

[52] Colin Butler, ‘Climate change, health and existential risks to civilisation’ (2018) 15(10) International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Research 2266.

[53] Julie Guthman, ‘The Polanyian Way – Voluntary food labels as neoliberal governance’ (2007) 39(3) Antipode 456 (‘The Polanyian Way’).

[54] Andrew Macintosh, ‘Plastic bag bans: Lessons from the Australian Capital Territory’ (2020) 154 Resources, Conservation and Recycling 1.

[55] The Polanyian Way (n 53).

[56] Gautam Donga and Naresh Patel, ‘A review of research studies on factors affecting consumers’ use of nutritional labels’ (2018) 7(3) Nutrition & Food Science International Journal 1, 3.

[57] Megan Horst, Nathan McClintock and Lesli Hoey, ‘The intersection of planning, urban agriculture and food justice’ (2017) 83(3) Journal of American Planning Association 277, 280.

[58] Ibid.

[59] Steve Vincent, ‘The emotional labour process’ (2011) 64(10) Human Relations 1.

[60] Nelene Koen, Renee Blaauw and Edelweiss Wentzel-Viljoen, ‘Food and nutritional labelling’ (2016) 29(1) South African Journal of Clinical Nutrition 13.

[61] Ibid 31.

[62] Stuart Washington and Alexandra Smith, ‘Supermarket food labels mislead shoppers’, Sydney Morning Herald (online, 26 December 2011) <https://www.smh.com.au/business/supermarket-food-labels-mislead- shoppers-20111225-1p9ld.html>.

[63] Ibid.

[64] Carol Nader, ‘$330,000 buys Maccas the tick of approval’, The Age (online, 6 February 2007) <https://www.theage.com.au/national/330-000-buys- maccas-the-tick-of-approval-20070206-ge45p2.html>.

[65] Aparna Sundar and Frank Kardes, ‘The role of perceived variability and the health halo effect in nutritional inference and consumption’ (2015) 32(5) Psychology and Marketing 512 (‘Health halo effect’).

[66] Angela Nelson, ‘6 ways our partners practice sustainable farming’, Subway (Website, 31 August 2018) <https://www.subway.com/en- us/subculture/ways-our-partners-practice-sustainable-farming>.

[67] Associated Press, ‘Subway bread isn’t bread, court rules’, Australian Financial Review (online, 2 October 2018) <https://www.afr.com/world/europe/subway-bread-isn-t-bread-court- rules-20201002-p5619x>.

[68] Health halo effect (n 65).

[69] Sebastiao Vieira de Freitas Netto et al, ‘Concepts and forms of greenwashing’ (2020) 32(19) Environmental Sciences Europe 1.

[70] Ibid 2.

[71] John Paull, ‘Price premiums for organic food from Australia and China’ (Research Paper, Australia National University, 2008).

[72] Anne Brouwer, ‘Revealing greenwashing: a consumer’s perspective’ (Research Paper, La Trobe University, 2016).

[73] Marc Edelman et al, ‘Critical perspectives on food sovereignty’ (2014) 41(6) Journal of Peasant Studies 911.

[74] Veena Jha, Rene Vossenaar and Simonette Zarrili, Eco-Labelling and International Trade (Palgrave Macmillian, 1st ed, 1997) 266.

[75] Wenbin Cao, Hui Wang and Huihui Ying, ‘The effect of environmental regulation on employment in resource-based areas of China’ (2017) 14(12) International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 1598.

[76] The power of putting a label on it (n 34).

[77] Max Roser, ‘Employment in agriculture’ (Research Paper, Oxford University, 2020).

[78] Samuel Fankhaeser et al, ‘Climate change, innovation and jobs’ (2011) 8(4) Climate Policy 421, 423.

[79] How to shift consumer behaviours (n 46); The power of putting a label on it (n 34).

[80] David Crowder and John Reganold, ‘Financial competitiveness of organic agriculture on a global scale’ 112(24) Proceedings of the National Academy of the United States of America 7611.

[81] Hanna Tuomisto et al, ‘Does organic farming reduce environmental impacts?’ (2012) 112(2) Journal of Environmental Management 309.

[82] Douadia Bougherar, Gilles Grolleau and Luc Thiebaut, ‘Can labelling policies do more harm than good?’ (Research Paper, Centre of Economics and Sociology France, 2003) 8.

[83] Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations, ‘Water footprint of the banana industry’ (Report, World Banana Forum, 2017); Arjen Hoekstra, ‘Water for food’ (Swedish Research Council for Environmental, Agricultural Sciences and Spatial Planning, 2008) 49.

[84] Wilma Waterlander et al, ‘The effect of food price changes on consumer purchases’ (2019) 4(8) The Lancent Public Health 394, 395.

[85] Mary Dugan, ‘Rice’ (2015) 16(3) Journal of Agricultural & Food Information 1540.

[86] Norman Uphoff and Frank Dazzo, ‘Making rice production more environmentally friendly’ (2016) 3(2) Environments 1, 4.

[87] Oxfam International, ‘More rice for the people, more water for the planet’ (Report, Global Freshwater Programme, 2010) 4.

[88] Crispin Thurlow and Adam Jaworski, ‘Introducing elite discourse: the rhetorics of status, privilege and power’ (2017) 27(3) Social Semiotics 243; Kate Clark, ‘The social, economic and environmental benefits of cultural heritage’ (Essay, Australian Government Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment, 2011) 1; Trish Corry, ‘Environmental elitism and the inconsequential worker’, Australian Independent Media (online, 15 June 2017) <https://theaimn.com/72465-2/>.

[89] Donna Porter et al, ‘Nutritional Labelling’ (Institute of US Medicine, 1990) ch 4.

[90] Mark Lawrence and Christina Pollard, ‘Food labels are about informing choice, not some nanny state’, The Conversation (online, 26 February 2014) <https://theconversation.com/food-labels-are-about-informing-choice-not- some-nanny-state-23320>.

[91] Augustin Fragniere, ‘Climate change and individual duties’ (2016) 7(6) WIRES Climate Change 1.

[92] Gunne Grankvist, Ulf Dahlstrand and Anders Biel, ‘The impact of environmental labelling on consumer preference’ (2004) 27(2) Journal of Consumer Policy 213.

[93] Ibid.

[94] Impact of food sustainability labels (n 9) 7253; The use of eco-labels (n 7) 324.

[95] Elise Golan et al, ‘Economics of food labelling’ (2001) 24 Journal of Consumer Policy 117.

[96] William Viscusi, ‘Regulation of Health, Safety and Environmental Risks’ (Discussion Paper No 544, Harvard Law School, 2006) 1.

[97] Jouni Paavola, ‘Health impacts of climate change and health and social inequalities in the UK’ (2017) 16(113) Environmental Health 61.

[98] Yale Program on Climate Change Communication, ‘Knowing of climate change across global warming’s six Americas’ (Report, Yale University, 2010).

[99] David Granatstein, ‘How big is the fruit growing footprint?’ (Essay, Washington State University, 2007).

[100] Ulrika Samnegard et al, ‘Management trade-offs on ecosystem services in apple orchards’ (2018) 56(4) Journal of Applied Ecology 802, 803.

[101] Rainer Haas et al, ‘Cow milk versus plant-based milk substitutes’ (2019) 11(18) Sustainability 5046, 5047.

[102] Julian Fulton, Michael Norton and Fraser Shilling, ‘Water-indexed benefits and impacts of California almonds’ (2019) 96(1) Ecological Indicators 711, 713.

[103] Ibid 712.

[104] Angelina Frankowska, Harish Jeswani and Asidsa Azpagic, ‘Environmental impacts of vegetable consumption in the UK’ (2019) 782 Science of the Total Environment 80.

[105] Aisha Al-Rumaihi et al, ‘Environmental impact assessment of food waste management using two composting techniques’ (2020) 12(4) Sustainability 1595.

[106] Ibid 1596.

[107] Pasquale Ferranti, Elliot Berry and Anderson Jock, ‘Encyclopedia of Food Security and Sustainability’ (Elsevier Science, 1st ed, 2019) 17.

[108] Manel Modelo, ‘The paradox of FairTrade’ (2014) 12(1) Stanford Social Innovation Review 1.

[109] Brian Campbell and James Veteto, ‘Free seeds and food sovereignty’ (2015) 22(1) Journal of Political Ecology 445.

[110] Jason Czarnezki, ‘The neo-liberal turn in environmental regulation’ (2016) 1(1) Utah Law Review 1.

[111] Cliona Ni Mhurchu, Helen Eyles and Yeun-Hyang Choi, ‘Effects of a voluntary front-of-pack nutrition labelling system on packaged food reformation’ (2017) 9(8) Nutrients 918.

[112] Oakdene Hollins Research & Consulting, ‘EU EcoLabel for food and feed products’ (Report, European Commission, October 2011) 48.

[113] Miriam Weismann, ‘The failure of the self-regulatory model of corporate governance in the global business environment’ (2009) 88(4) Journal of Business Ethics 615.

[114] Environment Protection and Biodiversity Consideration Act 1998 (Cth).

[115] Zenobia Talati et al, ‘Do health claims and front-of-pack labels lead to a positivity bias in unhealthy foods?’ (2016) 8(12) Nutrient 787.

[116] Ibid 790.

[117] Ibid.

[118] EcoLabel index (n 16).

[119] Marial White and Simon Barquera, ‘Mexico adopts food warning labels’ (2020) 6(1) Health Systems & Reform 1.

[120] Haidong Kan, ‘Environment and health in China’ (2009) 117(12) Environment Health Perspective 530.

[121] Michael Smith et al, ‘China targets $6b of Australian exports in fresh campaign’, Australian Financial Review (online, 3 November 2020) <https://www.afr.com/world/asia/china-targets-6-bln-of-australian- exports-in-fresh-coercian-campaign-20201103-p56ayx>.

[122] Jill McCluskey and Jason Winfree, ‘The economics of GM labelling and implications for trade’ (2017) 15(1) Journal of Agricultural & Food Industrial Organisation 1, 3.

[123] Karen Hussey et al, ‘Australia, the EU and the New Trade Agenda’ (Australian National University, 2017).

[124] Anne Thow et al, ‘Nutrition labelling is a trade policy issue’ (2017) 33(4) Health Promotion International 561, 567.

[125] John Mowbray, ‘Bangladesh shouldn’t cut corners on sustainability’, EcoTextile News (Website, 6 April 2020) <https://www.ecotextile.com/2020040625924/materials-production- news/bangladesh-shouldn-t-cut-corners-on-sustainability.html>.

[126] Chelsea Sutherland et al, ‘Consumer insights on Canada’s food safety and food risk system’ (2020) 2 Journal of Agriculture and Food Research 1.

[127] Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances, ‘Environmental labelling issues, policies and practices worldwide’ (Report, United States Environmental Protection Agency, December 1998) 34.

[128] Nikolay Minkov et al, ‘Characterisation of environmental labels beyond the criteria of ISO14020 series’ (2020) 25 The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 1.

[129] Anne Thow et al, ‘Increasing the public health voice in global decision making on nutritional labelling’ (2020) 16(3) Globalisation and Health 1.

[130] Impact of food sustainability labels (n 9) 7253; The use of eco-labels (n 7) 324.

[131] The power of putting a label on it (n 34).

[132] Tesco drops carbon-label pledge (n 20).

[133] Lawrence Gostin, ‘BigFood is making America sick’ (2016) 94(3) The Milbank Quarterly 480, 481.

[134] Gyorgy Scrinis, ‘BigFood corporations and the nutritional marketing and regulation of processed foods’ (2015) 2(2) Canadian Food Studies 136, 139.

[135] Stefanie Engel, ‘Overcompliance, labelling and lobbying’ (2006) 11(2) Environmental Modelling & Assessment 115.

[136] Kent Messer, Marco Costanigro and Harry Kaiser, ‘Labelling food processes: the good, the bad and the ugly’ (2017) 39(3) Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy 1.

[137] Section 3 of this essay.

[138] Section 3 of this essay.

[139] Section 3 of this essay.

[140] Khan Taufique et al, ‘Integrating general environmental knowledge and eco-label knowledge’ (2016) 37 Procedia Economics and Finance 39, 43.

[141] Section 3 of this essay.

[142] Florina Bran, ‘The role of financial assistance in the implementation of environmental policy’ (2009) 1(1) Knowledge Management Research & Practice 58.


AustLII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback
URL: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/UNSWLawJlStuS/2021/14.html