Unpacking green claims (Part 2): Who did it better? In-store reviews of plant based brands

Plant-based meat and dairy alternatives attract more environmentally conscious customers and multiple researches have found plant-based foods to have a lower environmental impact than the correspondent animal-based product.

Plant-based brands therefore have a stronger incentive (and justification!) to share information about the environmental impact of their products with their customers.

So I decided to visit my local grocery store to take a look at how brands are handling environmental claims.

I am quite lucky because, here in Germany, the selection of plant-based alternatives is quite large, especially for meat, cheese and milk products!

Excluding the store brand, I counted 12 different vegan meet brands (with 61 total products), three vegan cheese brands (13 products) and five plant based milk (26 products). In total there were 100 different plant based products on offer.

I picked one representative product for each brand which published a product-specific environmental claim on the packaging and rated it from ⭐ to ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ in the following categories:

  1. Specific: is the statement detailed and precise and does it quantify or clearly define the environmental benefit or impact of the product?

  2. Substantiated: is the statement backed by publicly available verifiable, scientific evidence or data?

  3. Relevant: is the information useful for consumers to decide what product to buy based on environmental impact?

Here are my reviews!

1. Planted — Plant based chicken: CO2 emissions and water usage comparison with meat

Environmental claim: “Better than chicken — 77% less CO2e and 85% less water than chicken”. Overall score (out of 5 stars): ⭐⭐⭐⭐

Specific: ⭐⭐⭐⭐ The statement is specific as it quantifies the environmental benefits in terms of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) emissions and water usage compared to chicken.

Substantiated: ⭐⭐⭐⭐ The data is provided by a 3rd party: Eaternity, a Swiss-based company providing environmental impact assessment for food products, which is indicated on the packaging. No direct link to the underlying data is provided but more information can be found on Planted’s website and sustainability report. Here we can see that Eaternity completed a cradle to gate LCA (Life Cycle Assessment) in 2019/2020 and updated it in 2022.

Relevant: ⭐⭐⭐ Consumers can compare environmental impact with the correspondent animal product on two different impact categories (CO2e emissions and water). However, impact data for the product itself is not shared so it’s not possible to compare planted’s product with other plan-based meats. Other impact categories could be considered to provide a more holistic view of the product’s environmental footprint (e.g. land use, energy efficiency of production processes, impact on biodiversity, and pollution levels).

2. Oatly — Oat milk: product CO2 Emissions

Claim: “Climate footprint for one Kg of Oat milk is 0.38 CO2e / Kg”. Overall score (out of 5 stars): ⭐⭐⭐⭐

Specific: ⭐⭐⭐⭐ The statement is specific because it provides a clear, quantifiable measure of the CO2 equivalent (CO2e) emissions associated with producing one kilogram of oat milk. This specificity allows for direct comparisons with the carbon footprint of other products, aiding in informed decision-making regarding environmental impact.

Substantiated: ⭐⭐⭐⭐ The data is provided by a 3rd party: Carbon Cloud, a Swedish food industry carbon intelligence platform, which is indicated on the packaging (measurement date 02/2023). A link to the data and more information is also found on the packaging oatly.com/footprint. Here we learn that the data point is based on a CO2e cradle to gate LCA performed according to the ISO standard 14067.

Relevant: ⭐⭐ Since at the moment few companies share the CO2 footprint of their products, the information by itself is not very useful to make purchasing decisions. Oatly also does not share any information about environmental impact outside of CO2 on the packaging: including data on water and land use could be relevant for a food products relying on agriculture for raw material production.

3. Vly — pea-protein plant based milk: product CO2 emissions

Claim: “Climate footprint 0.267 Kg CO2e”. Overall score (out of 5 stars): ⭐⭐

Specific: ⭐⭐ The statement is slightly confusing because it does not indicate what unit of product it applies to, such as per kilogram, per liter, or per unit. I assume it is 1L or 1Kg.

Substantiated: ⭐ The logo of Planet FWD, a leading San Francisco based decarbonisation platform for the consumer industry, is on the packaging, however there is no link and I could not find more information about the footprint calculation on the company’s website so it’s impossible to understand how the impact was calculated.

Relevant: ⭐⭐ Similarly to Oatly, the information by itself at the moment is not very useful to make purchasing decisions. This company also shares only CO2 impact and no other environmental impact.

4. Berief — almond milk: CO2 emissions compensation and climate neutrality

Claim: Climate neutral product: all non-avoidable emissions are compensated by the company via climate protection projects.* Overall score (out of 5 stars): ⭐⭐⭐

*this means that Berief has invested into a carbon offset projects: these are initiatives such as tree planting, improved forest management, wind / solar energy which are expected to reduce, avoid, or remove emissions.

Specific: ⭐ ⭐ ⭐ While it’s not a bad thing for brands to fund environmental project, the term “Climate Neutral” itself is coming under a lot of scrutiny especially in the context of the EU Green Claim Directive. The critique is that it may give consumers the impression that the product has no environmental impact. The EU is set to ban this type of claims if they are based purely on emission offsetting. In this case, Berief is making an effort to be transparent including an explanation of the neutrality claim which makes the claim fairly specific, however they may need to change the wording in the future.

Substantiated: ⭐⭐⭐ The carbon offset projects are backed by, Climate Partner, a German corporate climate action solution provider, which is indicated on the packaging. A QR code links to the brand’s page on the Climate Partner’s website showing that 181,137.5 t CO2 have been offset between 01/2021–12/2023 via tree planting projects in Germany and internationally. On the company’s website their 2012 emissions are reported as 60.992 t CO, the data is certified by a 3rd party (DEKRA). This means that Berief purchased offset covering roughly 100% of their emissions between 2021/2023.

Relevant: ⭐ The fact that Berief has invested in climate protection projects it’s great but it does not provide any information on the environmental impact of their product. The mention of carbon neutrality may mislead consumers in believing that the product has no environmental impact.

5. Alpro — Almond milk: Water footprint comparison with traditionally irrigated almonds

Claim: watered with rain water: consumes 8X less water than traditionally irrigated almonds. *⅔ of water needs are cover by rain. Requires more land than traditional irrigation. Overall score (out of 5 stars): ⭐⭐

Specific: ⭐ ⭐ The statement is specific and informative: it highlights a significant reduction in water usage, a critical environmental consideration, especially in water-scarce regions. However, the mention of increased land use introduces a trade-off, suggesting that while water efficiency is improved, it may have higher land requirements which is not adequately quantified in the statement.

Substantiated: ⭐ The 3rd party source of the data and date of the analysis, Quantis / 2021, is shown on the packaging. A link to the company website is also present alpro.com/planet. The website however, does not provide information on how this data point was calculated.

Relevant: ⭐ ⭐⭐ Water use is a significant impact category for almond cultivation so it’s great that Alpro decided to share this data with consumers. As noted for previous brands, sharing other impact category would provide comprehensive understanding of the product’s environmental impact.

Previous
Previous

Unpacking green claims (part 3): best practices for better environmental claims

Next
Next

Unpacking green claims (Part 1): ecolabels and the EU Green Claims Directive