Is Your Eco-Label Lying?

I would like to bring your attention to Animal Welfare Approved, the high-welfare label that the World Society for the Protection of Animals calls "the most stringent" of all of the food labels regarding humane treatment of farm animals.

The Animal Welfare Approved program audits and certifies family farms that utilize high-welfare methods of farming. Farmers benefit from having a third-party affirmation of their practices and consumers benefit by knowing that the label means what it says.

What Does the AWA Seal Mean for You?

Animals are raised outdoors on pasture or range on true family farms with the “most stringent” welfare standards according to the World Society for the Protection of Animals in both 2008 and 2009 reports. The standards have been developed in collaboration with scientists, veterinarians, researchers and farmers and incorporate best practice and recent research. Annual audits by experts in the field cover birth to slaughter.

http://www.AnimalWelfareApproved.org

Visit the website for a searchable database of where you can find AWA products across the US.

IMO none of these labels are lies, most if not all are commonly assumed to mean different things than they actually do and many take advantage of the consumer's ignorance in their marketing. The problem really lies in the consumer's lack of education. If you know what the label means (and understand what the terms mean) you will use them appropriately. Unfortunately sites like these who have a one issue focus contribute to the confusion. The Food Alliance is not just an "Eco" label. They work with farmers to create just and responsible management of their human resources (workers) and expand the impact of farming practices to include the surrounding air, water and soil qualities, a much bigger concern than mere exclusion of pesticides.
When using labels like these it is important to differentiate what they are in comparison to, as well as use whatever other information you have available (like scale of farm, directness of marketing/distribution etc.) I.E. "organic" vs. non-organic with no other information gives the advantage to "organic", at least you know that there were no artificial fertilizers or pesticides used and the product contains no GMO's which is becoming more and more likely with the unlabled product. But if the "organic" farm is large scale and mass distributed and the alternate choice is a The Food Alliance certified farm which is a small local farm reducing pesticide use to minimal levels necessary to compete financially as a part of their involvement with the alliance and they are improving worker conditions and establishing a managed wetland on their property to improve the ecological health of their region the choice is not so clear cut, esp. if you care about more than just how "Eco" friendly products are.

MOJO Editors:
What criteria did you use to determine this rating? You did well to recognize independent, third-party verified labels, but without telling your readers HOW you've rated these labels you've only added confusion to the nuanced world of ecolabels.

More than any other ecolabel, Food Alliance Certified addresses a broad range of issues related to food production and processing.

Food Alliance standards include:
1. Ensure healthy, humane animal treatment
2. Support safe and fair working conditions
3. Protect and enhance soil resources
4. Protect and conserve water resources
5. Protect and enhance biodiversity
6. Conserve energy, reduce and recycle waste
7. Reduce use of pesticides, and other toxic and hazardous materials
8. Maintain transparent and sustainable “chain of custody”
9. Guarantee product integrity, no genetically engineered or artificial ingredients
10. Continually improve practices

On the issue of pesticides:
All farmers face threats to crops and animals from pests and disease. Food Alliance Certified standards emphasize farm management practices that help prevent the occurrence of pests and disease in the first place. As examples, farmers use integrated pest management, rotate crops to prevent the build up of pest populations, or plant rows further apart to allow better air circulation to avoid problems with mildew. Food Alliance Certified recognizes that if farmers and ranchers manage the land and agricultural cycles appropriately, they can reduce or even eliminate reliance on routine pest treatments.

I hope you and readers will learn more about what makes Food Alliance Certified the most comprehensive and credible ecolabel for sustainable food in North America.

http://www.foodalliance.org

I'm curious about the source of information for the item re: wood and paper eco-labels.

The Sustainable Forestry Initiative and Forest Stewardship Council programs are both independent third-party certification programs that monitor supply chains and replant trees. The FSC program also allows clearcutting and pesticide use – why not add that in FSC’s description? The truth is both standards manage these aspects of forestry by ensuring appropriate requirements are in place for wildlife habitat, water quality, and in the case of pesticides minimizing their use, and using narrowest spectrum pesticides and alternative methods such as integrated pest management, but at the end of the day, pests, insects and disease can do great damage to forests and their ecosystems, and therefore it makes environmental sense to control them in the most environmentally responsible manner possible.

I certainly appreciate the intent of the article – given that greenwashing is a real problem – but I think your summary of SFI is off the mark. In fact, in its Seven Sins of Greenwashing (http://sinsofgreenwashing.org/), TerraChoice recognized SFI and FSC on-product labels among 14 credible eco-labels because that meet its criteria -- third-party certified, publicly available standard, and transparent standard development process. Neither of these independently audited standards are examples of greenwash – in the world of eco-labelling, SFI and FSC are leaders. Currently just 10% of the world’s forests are certified at all - espousing controversy by pitting one 3rd party system against another is counterproductive.

Like Mother Jones, SFI Inc. is a 501(c)(3) non-profit charitable organization, so I know you can appreciate this means we are not organized or operated for the benefit of any private interests. Our board represents conservation/environmental, social and economic sectors equally. And while the original SFI guidelines were developed under the auspices of the forest industry, that was close to 20 years ago - the program and the Standards have evolved. In fact, next month we launch the third standard developed through an open public review process. You can learn more at sfiprogram.org

A more accurate accounting of the SFI program in your listing (with a green rating) would be: "Independent certified label shows wood and paper are from legal, responsible sources. Forests are replanted and sustainable practices promoted on all suppliers’ lands in North America."

If you are interested in learning more about the SFI program check out www.sfiprogram.org or goodforforests.com

There are an awful lot of comments about the lack of information and confusion and about how this article is contributing to the confusion of eco-labels.

Yet, I feel that just raising the issue is a huge step. I do not think that this article will confuse people, but I definitely believe that it will open people's eyes to the truth, don't just trust a label, find out what it really stands for.

Society in general has allowed itself to be duped by large companies, we have become to trusting, I think articles like this one can call on us to be more discerning.

This has been a fantastically helpful thread. I learned a lot. Partial fallout from the thread: I resolve to patronize the FOUR farmers' markets that we have in our small city, plus others in adjacent cities. We also have a large and flourishing co-op market. So there's no more excuse for just picking up one or two onions or one green pepper (I cook for just moi) out of convenience. I will try to make a list and shop where one doesn't have to worry about labels. Exception:
I still buy Trader Joe's frozen foods because I think (I hope) they are relatively free of bad stuff. Opinions?