Voluntary food labelling schemes study

Voluntary food labelling schemes study

Consumers often have a limited understanding of food labelling, as per conclusions of the report on Consumer Empowerment in the EU (2011) and the in-depth study on the functioning of the meat market for EU consumers (2013). This is particularly relevant in light of growing number of food labelling schemes, which often make it difficult for consumers to navigate through the vast amount of information.

In an in-depth study (2013), the European Commission assessed the performance of voluntary food labelling schemes and analysed consumers’ awareness of, trust in and willingness to pay for food products affiliated to voluntary labelling schemes.

Findings:

• 901 schemes were identified across Europe: 78% were certification schemes (relying on third-third party attestation procedure for its members) whereas 18% were identified as self-declaration schemes (without a third party attestation).
• 4 in 10 respondents to a consumer survey say they find scheme labels difficult to understand and a third say they find logos and symbols on scheme labels confusing.
• Information is usually provided on scheme websites in a rather clear way, however, more detailed and understandable information appears harder to obtain, for example it is not always clear whether the scheme is based on objective and verifiable evidence.
• Consumers’ knowledge of relevant rules is low and, in addition, they tend to believe that requirements for all food labelling schemes are stricter than they are in fact. In general, almost 60% of consumers say they trust the information on scheme labels, however, while 71% say they trust third party certified schemes, only 30% would trust self-certification schemes.
• To some extent, consumers are also confused and uncertain about the meaning of labels showing affiliation to a scheme, in particular as regards a health scheme.
• Results of a behavioural test show that, although there are important differences between countries, on average around 60% of respondents would choose a product with an origin-related logo even if it is almost 30% more expensive than a regular product. More than 4 in 10 respondents would be willing to pay a price premium of 30% for a product with an animal welfare logo. For a health-related logo, this share drops to around 35%.
• Consumers tend to perceive products affiliated to a food labelling scheme as in general of better quality, healthier and safer to eat.
• Certification schemes to a greater extent than self-declaration schemes adhere to the requirements of the 2010 Commission guidelines for voluntary certification schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs. On average, schemes meet around 50% of the guidelines’ requirements.