Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2021 Oct;53(8):891-925.
doi: 10.1177/0013916521995473. Epub 2021 Feb 20.

The Effects of Environmental Sustainability Labels on Selection, Purchase, and Consumption of Food and Drink Products: A Systematic Review

Christina Potter  1 , Anastasios Bastounis  1   2 , Jamie Hartmann-Boyce  1 , Cristina Stewart  1 , Kerstin Frie  1 , Kate Tudor  1 , Filippo Bianchi  1 , Emma Cartwright  1 , Brian Cook  1 , Mike Rayner  1 , Susan A Jebb  1
Affiliations

The Effects of Environmental Sustainability Labels on Selection, Purchase, and Consumption of Food and Drink Products: A Systematic Review

Christina Potter et al. Environ Behav. 2021 Oct.

Abstract

This review assessed the effects of environmental labels on consumers' demand for more sustainable food products. Six electronic databases were searched for experimental studies of ecolabels and food choices. We followed standard Cochrane methods and results were synthesized using vote counting. Fifty-six studies (N = 42,768 participants, 76 interventions) were included. Outcomes comprised selection (n = 14), purchase (n = 40) and consumption (n = 2). The ecolabel was presented as text (n = 36), logo (n = 13) or combination (n = 27). Message types included: organic (n = 25), environmentally sustainable (n = 27), greenhouse gas emissions (n = 17), and assorted "other" message types (n = 7). Ecolabels were tested in actual (n = 15) and hypothetical (n = 41) environments. Thirty-nine studies received an unclear or high RoB rating. Sixty comparisons favored the intervention and 16 favored control. Ecolabeling with a variety of messages and formats was associated with the selection and purchase of more sustainable food products.

Keywords: demand; ecolabels; food; systematic review.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Declaration of Conflicting Interests: The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

    1. Aerni P., Scholderer J., Ermen D. (2011). How would Swiss consumers decide if they had freedom of choice? Evidence from a field study with organic, conventional and GM corn bread. Food Policy, 36(6), 830–838.
    1. Aguilar F. X., Cernusca M. M., Gold M. A., Barbieri C. E. (2010). Frequency of consumption, familiarity and preferences for chestnuts in Missouri. Agroforestry Systems, 79(1), 19–29.
    1. Aizaki H., Nanseki T., Zhou H. (2013). Japanese consumer preferences for milk certified with the good agricultural practice (GAP) label. Animal Science Journal, 84(1), 82–89. - PubMed
    1. Akaichi F., Grauw S., Darmon P., Revoredo-Giha C. (2016). Does fair trade compete with carbon footprint and organic attributes in the eyes of consumers? Results from a pilot study in Scotland, the Netherlands and France. Journal of Agricultural & Environmental Ethics, 29(6), 969–984.
    1. Ankamah-Yeboah I., Jacobsen J. B., Olsen S. B. (2018). Innovating out of the fishmeal trap; The role of insect-based fish feed in consumers’ preferences for fish attributes. British Food Journal, 120(10), 2395–2410.