Organic Insights Magazine - Spring 2023

2 / Organic Insights / Spring 2023

/ Continued fromprevious page

taking genuine steps to implement more sustainable practices.” “Businesses using broad claims like ‘environmentally friendly’, ‘green’, or ‘sustainable’ are obliged to back up these claims through reliable scientific reports, transparent supply chain information, reputable third- party certification or other forms of evidence.” In PKN Packaging News, Ms Lowe said that the ACCC had several active investigations underway resulting from the sweep and “We will take enforcement action where it is appropriate to do so as it is critical that consumer trust in green claims is not undermined.” In its assessment, the ACCC identified the widespread, indiscriminate use of certification trademarks and the term ‘certified’, sometimes with no clear measure of the robustness of the underpinning certification scheme – claims can be misleading in their application to product, product range, or company, and some businesses are even creating their own certification schemes. The proliferation in use of certification trademarks means that they are becoming increasingly meaningless in terms of assisting consumer choice. The ACCC’s publication ‘Green Marketing and the Australian Consumer Law’ guide is designed to educate businesses about their obligations under the law. The ACCC’s position is clear, in that companies that make claims to sustainable, environmental, green credentials, must ensure that the substance of these claims is ‘scientifically sound and appropriately substantiated’ i.e., are truthful. Third party certifications Organic certification is a third-party process, that is, it is independent of the producer/grower (first party) or downstream organisations, such as traders, or even professional organisations (second parties). Third party certification relies upon verification of claims by independent organisations and is therefore considered by consumer organisations and government to be more reliable. Each participant in the process, such as the organic inspector, is bound by rules that include confidentiality and impartiality. For export purposes, Australian certification bodies must be accredited by the Australian Government according to National Standard and subject to the Administrative Arrangements (AAs), a document produced by DAFF and based on ISO 17065 Guide for certification bodies that is universally applied to organic certification around the world. NCO is also accredited by the International Organic Accreditation Service (IOAS), an independent non-profit organisation founded by IFOAM. The European experience – Organic speaking up IFOAM Organics Europe made headlines in January, launching a lawsuit against the French agency for ecological transition, and developers and users of the ‘Eco-score’ sustainability labelling initiative, which is based on the European Commission’s Product

Environmental Footprint (PEF) methodology. Eco- score was developed in 2021 as a front of pack label that provides a colour coded assessment from A to E of the total environmental impact of a product, similar to Australian Energy Star Rating on consumer whitegoods. In launching the lawsuit, IFOAM Organics Europe claims that the term ‘Eco’ is synonymous with organic, and that Eco-Score will cause consumer confusion. In addition, the lawsuit challenges the underpinning methodology for the PEF and Eco-score that is believed to be misleading; is insufficiently broad enough and may in fact penalise some organic producers in favour of more intensive food production. IFOAM cites the example of eggs from hens in cages scoring better than free-range eggs, which in turn score better than organic eggs. The lawsuit follows warnings from 14 NGOs that the PEF effectively legitimises greenwashing. Eric Gall, deputy director of IFOAM Organics Europe said that “Consumers who see organic products with a bad eco- score grade will be confused or think that organic is bad for the environment.” In its policy position paper on sustainability labelling, IFOAM identifies that 87% of EU citizens agree that there should be stricter rules when calculating environmental impact and related claims. IFOAM introduced its own ‘Planet-score’ system in 2022, partly based on the PEF, but considered broader performance on pesticides, biodiversity and climate impacts and a separate animal welfare score, to define sustainability. The scheme has been used by 180 companies across 20,000 products in 11 countries to date. The IFOAM case is set to test the basis upon which products in the EU are to be assessed as legitimately meeting ‘environmental’ standards, now and into the future. The Australian situation Australian primary producers (farmers, fishers and foresters) can display an amazing almost 200 environmental and social certification marks on their product. Some of these are reliable, but some lack suitable evidence. Claims around carbon accounting have come under particular scrutiny in past months. At least one company in Australia is certifying organic produce according to the AS6000 and is not one of the six accredited companies listed on the DAFF website. Major organic industry organisations know very little about this company, and they have declined to answer my emails and phone calls. The AS6000 can be used by Australian courts and the ACCC, but there is no specific budget for market surveillance, or clear, simple pathway for dealing with fraud. At the launch of the National Standard (NS) by government, in 1992, it was widely assumed by everyone, including Simon Crean (Minister for Agriculture at the time) that the NS would be adopted