Fragmented climate labels leave shoppers guessing

A new study from Aarhus University Technical Sciences highlights a growing problem in European supermarkets: the proliferation of climate labels on food products, each based on different calculation methods and communication styles. Instead of guiding consumers toward greener choices, the labels often create confusion and mistrust.

The research shows that while climate labels are intended to make sustainable shopping easier, the lack of harmonisation means two similar products can carry very different “green” claims. For example, a pack of pasta in Denmark and one in Germany might both advertise climate-friendliness, yet the underlying data and thresholds used to justify those claims differ significantly.

For plant-based food producers, the findings are particularly relevant. Many brands rely on climate labelling to differentiate themselves from animal-based competitors and to appeal to eco-conscious consumers. But if the labels themselves are inconsistent, the credibility of plant-based products risks being diluted.

• Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) is the backbone of most climate labels, measuring emissions from farm to fork.
• The study found that different LCA methodologies – and varying ways of presenting results – make it nearly impossible for consumers to compare products fairly.
• Without a shared framework, plant-based foods may not get the recognition they deserve for their lower climate impact compared to meat and dairy.

Researchers urge policymakers and industry leaders to establish common European standards for climate labelling. A unified approach would:

• Ensure transparent and comparable data across borders.
• Strengthen consumer trust in plant-based claims.
• Support the EU’s broader sustainability goals by making climate-friendly choices more intuitive.

The report echoes earlier calls for a state-controlled climate label in Denmark, designed to provide a reliable benchmark for food emissions.

For supermarkets and food brands, the lack of harmonisation poses both risks and opportunities:

• Risk: shoppers may dismiss climate labels as marketing gimmicks if they perceive inconsistency.
• Opportunity: early adopters of standardised, transparent labelling could gain a competitive edge, especially in the plant-based sector.

Consumers increasingly want to align their diets with climate goals, but the study suggests they need clearer, simpler signals to make informed choices.

‍