Policy Statement

September 4, 2002

The Organic Farming Research Foundation’s position on use of eco-labels is that they can be a legitimate and useful means of marketing a product based on compliance with stated production methods and standards. However, eco-labels can also be destructive to product marketing efforts and the environment if misunderstood by the consumer. We consider use of such labels appropriate provided that they are precisely defined, meaningful, transparent, and independently verifiable.

Use of eco-labels has become increasingly prevalent in recent years. Terms such as “shade-grown,” “family farmed,” “fair trade”, “sustainable,” and “salmon safe” have appeared in the market place promoting products as supposedly more socially responsible and ecologically friendly. Increased proliferation of such products is driven by special interests eager to urge consumers to use their purchasing power to make conscientious choices. Such labels can facilitate better understanding of the production or processing means (including social and environmental factors) that go into a particular product.

The Organic Farming Research Foundation notes certain benefits that such labeling mechanisms may provide, including:

• Improving conventional agricultural practices by encouraging farmers to use more environmentally friendly and/or socially just practices; and
• Economically rewarding farmers, processors, retailers, etc. who use more environmentally friendly and/or socially just practices

Many concerns exist, however, about the use of such labels. One is that the increasing prevalence of these labels may confuse and overwhelm customers, thereby invalidating any meaning they might have and obscuring their ability to provide significant information. Other concerns include that they may rely on poorly defined production standards, that there is often a lack of transparency regarding standards, and that there is generally a lack of regulatory mechanisms. Within the organic community there is a fear that many eco-labels imply that a product is organic or the equivalent, even though it does not comply with organic standards. For this reason, we believe that labels used in addition to an organic label (e.g. “organic, shade-grown coffee,” “organic, locally grown, small farm produced”) are less problematic than labels that attempt to compete with “organic” by using undefined terms such as “sustainable”, “natural”, etc.

We also recognize that the term “organic” is an eco-label itself, and one that has been successful in its use as an indicator of desirable production practices.

Several criteria that we believe should be used to evaluate eco-labels include:

• Definition: Definition should not only explain the meaning of the labels but also describe the types of production and processing practices that fit within the standards. Well-defined processes should include procedures for handling noncompliance situations as well as procedures for responding to and incorporating public comments about the program and its standards.
• Transparency: Transparency is of the utmost importance; standards and procedures must be made publicly available. The organization behind an eco-label should make information about organizational structure, funding, board of directors, and certification standards available to the public. The organization should also have a protocol outlining how the public can provide input on strengthening or improving the label.
• Verification: Verification that standards have been met must also be measurable so that level of compliance can be determined. For small-scale production of goods that are sold locally, a farmer’s pledge may be sufficient. For all products sold or marketed outside of the area of production, a neutral third party must conduct verification and inspection.
• Enforcement: This is one of the areas most in need of development. Third party verifiers in charge of certification of labels must be able to demonstrate that they are able to enforce their standards. This entails making public their denials of certification for products that do not meet the standards. Such enforcement efforts will protect consumers from untruthful or misleading labeling.

We hope to see continued efforts for improving standards for eco-labels. Improvements are particularly needed in the development of mechanisms for regulation of certification and accreditation. Also important is the development of mechanisms for enforcement. Should these improvements be made, eco-labels will have the potential to serve as a mechanism for addressing important questions of ecological integrity and social equity without diminishing the value of organic regulation.

We gratefully acknowledge Lynn S. Coody for her work, Scrutinizing Labels or Eco-labeling: Clean, Organic, Sustainable, presented at the Ecological Farming Conference, Monterey California. January 22, 1999.