Researchers have investigated how many supermarket-sold products boast green claims without backing them up.
Researchers have investigated how many supermarket-sold products boast green claims without backing them up.
THREE KEY FACTS
Researchers from the University of Auckland found seafood packaging claims often lacked clarity and substance.
Consumer New Zealand is advocating for stricter regulations to combat misleading environmental claims in labelling.
A sector group says the allegation is unfair to Kiwi companies whose fishing is regulated by sustainable quotas.
Seafood manufacturers have been accused of “greenwashing” by researchers who found most of the sustainability claims on their packaging were too vague.
Dr Kathryn Bradbury and fellow researchers from the University of Auckland investigated how many supermarket-sold products boasted claims without backing themup.
In all, the team assessed nearly 370 products like canned tuna, vacuum-packed salmon and frozen fish, and found in a study published today that fewer than half carried information about sustainability.
Of those that did make environmental claims, 80% were considered ambiguous, with vague messaging such as “sustainably fished” and “responsibly caught”.
“They are implying an environmental benefit, but are vague and therefore meaningless, because you don’t know exactly what it about them that is ‘sustainable’ or ‘responsible’,” Bradbury said.
“Consumers should know what exactly these companies are doing and that they can back up their claims.”
Although not required by law, around half the manufacturers didn’t state precisely where the seafood had been harvested and nine out of 10 didn’t specify the fishing methods used.
Just under a quarter carried an environmental certification, such as the Marine Stewardship Council credential.
Bradbury said her colleagues opted against naming and shaming the offending brands - but added the issue was “across the board” and involved a mix of Kiwi and international companies.
She said surveys showed that clear, accurate and specific labelling was important to consumers, while the Commerce Commission’s own guidance stated that green claims shouldn’t be vague.
“The Commerce Commission gives ‘dolphin safe’ as an example of a claim that should not be used, but we found 42 products had that claim on them.”
University of Auckland researcher Dr Kathryn Bradbury.
Bradbury argued the findings prompt the need for stronger enforcement, as well as stricter regulations, which Australia and European Union countries were bringing in.
“There needs to be a really strong message to companies that you can’t make these false claims that are not backed up and are really meaningless.”
Consumer New Zealand has also been pushing for tougher rules to combat greenwashing, pointing out that no vetting or checking is required here before green claims hit shelves.
Its own investigations have found claims it says are misleading on a range of products, including “eco-friendly” cotton tips, “ocean plastic” recycled bags, “carbon-neutral” teabags and “grass-fed” beef and butter.
The group was now looking at following up the latest “concerning” findings about seafood labelling itself, head of research and advocacy Gemma Rasmussen said.
A Commerce Commission spokesperson said current standards required origin disclosures for some foods, including fresh and frozen seafood, but not all products fell under the regulations.
The Fair Trading Act also mandated that any origin claims must be accurate and substantiated to avoid misleading consumers - and similar standards applied to environmental claims.
“We receive thousands of reports every year, and while we assess everything that we receive, we are unable to investigate everything.”
Industry group Seafood New Zealand, meanwhile, has taken issue with aspects of the study: namely that it didn’t clarify differences in labelling between local and imported products.
Spokeswoman Fiona MacMillan said the body could speak for Kiwi products like Sealord hoki, which had the “specific and verifiable” MSC tick, and the country’s largest iwi-owned company, Moana New Zealand, whose products all met regulatory labelling requirements.
For seafood that was sold fresh and wrapped over the counter, and with no labelling, consumers should talk to their retailers about where it had come from, she said.
Kiwi companies had looked into running precise traceability programmes, but these would have required resource-intensive operational changes.
Certification programmes like MSC were expensive and small-scale New Zealand fishers couldn’t afford to take part in these systems.
Nonetheless, she said consumers should know New Zealand fish was “sustainable”.
“We all operate under the strictly enforced and internationally recognised Quota Management System, which monitors our fish stocks and sets limits for what fishers can catch.”
Jamie Morton is a specialist in science and environmental reporting. He joined the Herald in 2011 and writes about everything from conservation and climate change to natural hazards and new technology.
