Father of food miles calls for green labelling overhaul

The myriad of different green and nutritional labels plastered all over food products should be integrated into one "omni-labelling" system designed to give customers a complete overview of a product's impact on the environment and society.

That is the view of Professor Tim Lang, the man who coined the phrase "food miles", and an advisor to the government on food policy, who told attendees at the British Association Festival of Science in Liverpool this week that while attempts to provide clearer food information were welcome, the glut of labels developed in recent years was only serving to confuse customers.

According to reports by the Guardian, Lang argued that consumers were frequently left to wrestle with conflicting advice, noting that government health guidance to eat fish appeared to run counter to concerns about overfishing. Similarly, he observed that buying fairtrade beans from Kenya may help the local economy, but the product also has a high environmental impact in terms of water use and transport-related carbon emissions.

People are left asking: "Which evidence do I listen to and shape my behaviour by?" he said.

To counter the problem, Lang proposed the formation of a new government-backed panel to develop "omni-standards" capable of integrating data on a range of issues, such as carbon footprints, packaging levels, nutrition, fairtrade, water use, animal welfare and impact on biodiversity. He said that the data could then be communicated using "food flower" labels where each petal represented a product's performance in a different area.

Lang accepted that developing such a standard would be fraught with difficulties, hinting strongly that one of the biggest stumbling blocks would be tensions between different government departments and their chief scientists over food and environmental policy. But he insisted clearer labelling was necessary to help customers better gauge environmental and social issues when making purchasing decisions.

However, a spokesman for the British Retail Consortium warned that introducing a new labelling system at a time when various environmental labels, such as the Carbon Trust's pilot labels displaying carbon footprint information, are just beginning to emerge could inadvertently lead to further confusion for customers.

"When it comes to proposing a new label you need to be clear that it is something customers can understand and use," he said. "There is labelling on carbon footprints being developed and a universal label on recyclability has just been rolled, while there is a raft of mandatory and voluntary labels on nutrition and other environmental issues… any new label would have to be very clear that it adds some value."

He also warned that integrating different metrics into one label would prove extremely difficult, arguing that customers could still end up confused by apparently contradictory data.

For example, a product might score badly in terms of packaging, but that packaging may extend the product's life and limit losses in the supply chain, meaning it scores better in terms of its carbon footprint.

"There is no simple way of getting an overall picture, and if you do seek to combine that information and get it wrong there is a risk that you end up unfairly demonising certain products," he said.