Carbon labeling for consumer goods is a concept full of promise and complexity. Providing end-users with information about the CO2 produced in the manufacturing, transportation, and disposal of products is a logical step in a world where NGOs, businesses, and governments are focused on reducing the impact carbon has on the health of our planet. Over the past five years, these three groups have each played a role in developing and implementing carbon labels. Today, carbon cataloging for all products appears inevitable and will allow shoppers around the world to more easily make purchasing decisions that help protect the Earth.

In 2006 Carbon Trust, a United Kingdom non-profit, developed the Carbon Reduction Label in an attempt to document the amount of carbon released during the lifecycle of a product and then pass that data onto consumers. The label was designed to show the carbon footprint of common items sold in the United Kingdom, such as detergent and cookies, and was implemented by several well-known companies that include Tesco and Walkers Crisps.

Around the same time, the US based footwear and clothing manufacturer Timberland was developing a “nutritional label” for their products. Their sticker assessed the effect of the company’s manufacturing practices on the health of the environment and the communities in which their plants operated. Initially, the same information appeared on all Timberland products, but in January 2007 their eco-labeling idea matured into the Green Index™ rating system that focuses on the impact of individual products. Ranking each item based on climate impact, chemicals used, and resources consumed allows Timberland to then rate their goods using a 0 – 10 system, with 0 being the lowest environmental impact. The Green Index™, the first eco-rating system for the apparel industry, is still in use and shows the tendency for markets to define their own sustainability standards.

Sweden’s government moved into the carbon labeling arena in 2008 when the Nutrition Department of their National Food Administration was asked to create new guidelines that encompass reducing climate change as well as maintaining human health. Earlier research suggested that up to 25% of an individual’s carbon footprint is associated with their diet. This incredible statistic shows that in addition to reducing my driving and flying, what I choose to bring into my kitchen affects my personal carbon emissions. This information means that seeking alternative sources of energy for my home and what I decide to order when eating out are both important ways in which I can help combat global warming.

By moving toward carbon labeling, Sweden’s actions are saying that providing consumers with more information will enable them to be better stewards of our natural world and that it is the role of government to push industry toward making CO2 information available. This is a wonderful step in the right direction, yet I see some challenges with including carbon emission counts alongside food in restaurants and at grocery stores.

The most obvious hurdle is defining who will be responsible for measuring carbon and which standards they will follow. In Sweden, emissions labeling is currently only a recommendation and each producer is asked to conduct its own research. The government has funded general studies on the nation’s staple products, but because there are multiple factors, including soil conditions, fertilizer use, degree of processing, packaging material, and length of transportation, companies such as Max, Sweden’s version of McDonald’s, are working to define the footprints of their specific menu items. The nation’s largest food co-op, Lantmannen, which is owned by 40,000 Swedish farmers, is also conducting CO2 emission audits for many of its products and placing its findings in supermarkets across the country.

The guidelines put forth by Sweden’s National Food Administration are now under review by other European Union (EU) countries. It will be interesting to see where the process goes from here. I am very encouraged that the development of carbon counting is already underway and am confident that EU programs could act as a models for how to roll out CO2 emission labels for food in America. Despite this forward progress, not all parties are in agreement that carbon labeling is a good idea. A 2009 study by the NCCR Trade Regulation finds both the lack of one standard certifying organization and the idea of creating a multi-national validation process reason for concern. Their paper states that “no widely accepted system of labeling exists, and creating one raises a number of questions on the global political and economic levels.” Not having a third party accreditation system in place is a valid concern as is the existence of too many organizations offering validation, something with which many industries struggle. Developing an international system would be difficult, but not impossible.

The second concern with carbon labels revolves around consumer education. Will people understand what the carbon numbers mean? When nutritional labels were introduced across the US in 1994, there was a steep learning curve. Even though much of the population already knew the terms being used, such as fat, protein, sodium, and carbohydrates, most of us did not fully understand how much fiber was enough and how the three different types of fats might affect our health. It has taken both public and private educational campaigns to bring us up to speed on why and how we should be reading nutritional labels and all the while dietary guidelines continue to change. It is prudent to expect the same ramp up time and on-going configuration when carbon emissions information is added to a food label already complex with nutritional analysis.

These organizational hurdles I have outlined are not specific to the food industry and will have to be managed across all sectors of the economy. Despite the trials, I believe CO2 labels will become ubiquitous over the next five years. The idea is similar in many ways to the model Climate Counts has developed. Climate Counts is one of my favorite organizations because it works to empower consumers in making purchasing decisions based on how companies are handling their climate change responsibilities. It ranks businesses in a variety of industries against a score card that evaluates what each company is doing to reduce its impact on the warming atmosphere. Educated consumers are then able to effect change as they have always done, by voting with their wallet for the type of company that takes its CO2 emissions management seriously.

The role of individuals can easily be seen when the discussion is brought back to the importance of carbon labels on food. Imagine going into a restaurant and ordering a pizza made with local goat cheese and organic vegetables. It would have a low CO2 count and most likely a slightly higher price than a pizza from the same establishment made with pepperoni and mozzarella sourced from a major distributor, which would have a higher emission label and a corresponding lower price. As with many Swedes, some US consumers will not change their eating habits, but opportunities to steadily transform people’s patterns abound. How many of us have been torn between two items at the supermarket or at the local grill? I have a feeling that understanding the true cost of what we purchase to the well-being the planet will move a significant portion of the population to choose the product or meal with the lower CO2 rating. They may not always make choices based on emissions information but if enough people do so occasionally, the combined impact of their decisions will create significant change.

I have been reading articles for several years that extol the virtues of a plant-based diet and I’ve noticed that the theme of these pieces has increasingly moved from personal health to the well-being of the planet. In addition to the goals of generating all of their country’s energy from non-carbon based fuels by 2020 and not allowing the sale of fossil fuel powered vehicles by 2030, Sweden has researched what else they can do to help reduce their country’s carbon emissions. By rolling out the inclusion of CO2 emission information with one of the most common items in our day-to-day lives, they have pioneered a system that has the power to transform the way we look at our food and the way we interact with our planet.

I am very hopeful that despite the logistical challenges, carbon emissions labels on food and other consumer products will soon be as common as nutritional information and material labels. I foresee both governments and NGOs playing a role in developing the programs as well as educating consumers on how to decipher CO2 figures. And I believe that providing people with carbon information is the best way for them to make informed decisions about how their actions affect our changing climate.

Last year, the Nutrition Department at Sweden’s National Food Administration was asked to create new guidelines that encompass reducing climate change as well as maintaining human health. Earlier research suggested that up to 25% of an individual’s carbon footprint is associated with their diet. This is an incredible number! It means that in addition to reducing my driving and flying, what I choose to bring into my kitchen affects my carbon emissions. That seeking alternative sources of energy for my home and what I decide to order when eating out are both very important ways in which I can help combat global warming. Providing consumers with more information will enable them to be better stewards to our natural world. What a wonderful step in the right direction.

I see several benefits, as well as some challenges, with including carbon emission counts alongside food in restaurants and at grocery stores. Let me start with two of the potential difficulties.

First of all, who is going to do the measuring and what standards will they follow? In Sweden, emissions labeling is only recommended and each producer is asked to conduct their own research. The government has funded general studies on staple products like rice, fish, carrots, chicken, and tomatoes, but because there are multiple factors, including soil conditions, fertilize use, degree of processing, packaging material, and length transportation, companies such as Max, Sweden’s local answer to McDonald’s, are working to define the footprints of their specific menu items. The nation’s largest food co-op, Lantmannen, which is owned by 40,000 Swedish farmers, is also conducting CO2 emission audits for many of its products and placing its findings in supermarkets across the country. The guidelines put forth by Sweden’s National Food Administration are now under review by other European Union (EU) countries. It will be interesting to see where the process goes from here. I am very encouraged that everything is already underway and am confident that the EU program could act as a model for how to roll out CO2 emission labels for food in America.

Secondly, how are consumers going to understand what the numbers mean? When nutritional labels were introduced across the US in 1994, there was a steep learning curve. Even though much of the population already knew the terms being used, such as fat, protein, sodium, and carbohydrates, most of us did not fully understand how much fiber was enough and how much sugar was considered too much. It has taken both public and private educational campaigns to bring us up to speed on why we should be reading nutritional labels. We have to expect the same ramp up time when emissions information is added to a label already busy with nutritional analysis. For most of the US, the entire idea of carbon emissions, what exactly they mean, how many ounces of CO2 per pound is too much, and what are reasonable alternatives to my burger must be answered. The question is who will be the teacher?

Despite these organizational hurdles, I believe CO2 labels will become ubiquitous over the next few years. The idea is similar in many ways to what Climate Counts has been doing. They are one of my favorite organizations because they are empowering consumers to make purchasing decisions based on how companies are handling their climate change responsibilities. Climate Counts ranks businesses in a variety of sectors against a score card that evaluates what the company is doing to reduce its role in climate change.

Carbon emission labels for food are more specific because they look at individual items rather than an entire organization. I think this is appropriate for food and may be a way for both consumers and producers to ease into a new paradigm where food takes on the important role of saving the Earth. Imagine going into a restaurant and ordering a pizza made with local goat cheese and organic vegetables. It would have a low CO2 count and most likely a slightly higher price than a pizza from the same establishment made with pepperoni and mozzarella from a major distributor, which would have a higher emission label and a corresponding lower price. As with many Swedes, some US consumers will not change their eating habits. But how many of us have been torn between two items at the supermarket or at the local grill? I have a feeling that understanding the true cost to the planet will move a significant portion of the population to choose the meal or product with the lower CO2 emissions. They may not always make choices based on emissions information but if enough people do it even occasionally, their impacts will create change.

If I begin to make food purchasing decisions based on the new food labeling, I am able to help re-focus the companies that produce the food. If Tyson Fresh Meats, the largest beef and pork supplier in the world, observes even a minor fluctuation in the amount of meat they are selling because their products have a high CO2 count, they will no doubt work to become competitive with companies that can provide these items with lower emissions. One of the first steps to measure and then reduce a carbon footprint is to assess the carbon released during each step of the supply chain. By encouraging its suppliers to reduce their emissions, Tyson could literally change the face of the industry. There are numerous examples of how the sustainability requirements Wal-Mart put in place have forced their suppliers to make a variety “green” business changes, many times looking to their own suppliers and asking them to reduce their CO2 emissions. Eventually each player in the chain cleans up their process and we all win.

I have been reading articles for several years that extol the virtues of a plant-based diet. The theme of these pieces has increasingly moved from human health to the well-being of the planet. In addition to their goals of generating all of their energy from non-carbon based fuels by 2020 and not allowing the sale of fossil fuel powered vehicles by 2030, Sweden has researched what else they can do to help reduce their country’s carbon emissions. By rolling out the inclusion of CO2 emission information with one of the most common items in our day-to-day lives, they have pioneered a system that has the power to transform the way we look at our food and the way we interact with our planet.

I am very hopeful that despite the logistical challenges, carbon dioxide emissions labels on food will soon be as common as nutritional information. I foresee both government and private institutions playing a role in developing the program as well as educating consumers on how to decipher CO2 figures. Whether or not consumers decide to act on this information is still unknown. I like to think that if we were able to ensure the safety of dolphins by demanding they be protected during tuna fishing, we will find it a way to make food choices that ensure the entire Earth is spared while we work to feed ourselves.

When Upton Sinclair wrote The Jungle, his infamous expose of the meat industry in the early 1900s,  his words shed light on both the unsanitary processing facilities as well as the exploitation of immigrant workers in the meat factories of Chicago. The public was outraged and demanded safer meat, a bit ironic because Sinclair had hoped to raise awareness of the dangerous working conditions. The Pure Food Act of 1906 and the Meat Inspection Act gave people safer meat and workers better conditions. Evidently these changes, and others that followed, were effective, for being a meat packer became a well-paid and respected position by the 1950s, in line with the often venerated American autoworker. This is in stark contrast to today’s meat plants, which are among the most dangerous places to work in the US. So what happened? Among other reasons, FOOD Inc. says, McDonald’s happened.

By getting rid of its waitresses and turning their kitchen into an assembly line, McDonald’s developed the foundation for the modern day industrial food company. People were trained to perform the same job over and over and over again. They were treated as machines, paid a low wage, and disposed of at will because other workers were readily available to take their place. As fast food grew, McDonald’s needed larger and larger quantities of meat, potatoes, chicken, lettuce, etc. They demanded that farmers ensure consistent quality in their products while at the same time decreasing their cost. How were the farmers of the 1950 and 1960s able to meet this demand? They were not and the corporate farm was born.

According to the movie, in the 1970s, the top four beef producers made up approximately 20% of the industry. Today, they account for almost 80%. The US has gone from having hundreds of slaughter houses to only thirteen major factories that process beef. Not only are the cows being kept in high density feedlots, they are being feed a diet of corn instead of what ruminants typically eat, grass. Corn is used because its production is heavily subsidized by the federal government and the cost to ranchers is actually below the cost of production. It also makes the cows grow larger and fatter.

The corn produces an unnatural environment in the cow rumination chamber and encourages the growth of harmful e-coli. Reports of e-coli tainted meat increased throughout the 1990s and we have even seen other crops, such as spinach and peanuts, become infected over the last few years. E-coli outbreaks have killed multiple people, one of the most notable of which was a 2 1/2 year old boy who died twelve days after eating an infected hamburger while on vacation with his family. This tragedy was the impetus for Kevin’s Law, a food safety bill that has been bounced around Capital Hill for almost a decade but has yet to find its way into law.

Despite a fair amount of doom and gloom concerning the current state of our food system, FOOD Inc. offers a strong sense that this madness can be stopped. Joel Salatin of Polyface Farms in Virginia is an honest, humble, and insightful spokesperson for a farming system that treats animals as living beings and rewards small scale agriculture with fresh, nutrient packed, and delicious food. The audience clapped when he mused about what happens to people who treat cattle, chickens, and pigs as if they were only a raw material. He wondered how we will treat our neighbors, our community, and the rest of the world if we can’t treat our food and the people who raise and process it with respect.

After the movie ended and the house lights came on, I left the Portsmouth Music Hall thinking about what Gary Hirshberg, CE-Yo of Stonyfield Farm, said near the end of the film about the power of consumers. He assured us that companies will do what we as consumers want. When Wal-Mart customers showed a preference for milk free of rGBH, an artificial growth hormone, the company switched to non-rGBH milk. This has more or less “nailed the coffin” on rGBH because of Wal-Mart’s tremendous buying power.

Each time we buy an item at the grocery store or the farmers market, we are sending a message to the food industry. Companies spend millions of dollars every year to find out what consumers want. Let’s make sure to tell them we need local food grown and raised with care on organic farms. And this food will taste even better when we know our choices are changing the way the modern way farms operate.