A food package can say a lot before a shopper ever turns it around. A green badge, a carbon claim or a sustainability seal can make a product look like the better choice, especially when someone is trying to make a quick decision in the grocery aisle.
But a new systematic review suggests those labels are not always as clear as they appear. Researchers from the University of Technology Sydney and Bond University reviewed studies on sustainability-related food labels and consumer behavior, finding that shoppers may be influenced by labels that are difficult to compare, verify or fully understand.
The study, published in the Journal of Strategic Marketing, did not test whether specific products were actually sustainable. Instead, it looked at how sustainability claims on food and consumer products affect attitudes and behavior, and why those claims can be confusing when labels focus on only part of a product’s environmental story.
“Consumers are trying to make better choices, but sustainability labels are not always easy to understand,” said Natalina Zlatevska, a professor of marketing at the University of Technology Sydney.
That confusion matters because many shoppers use labels as shortcuts. A symbol or claim can help people sort through choices quickly, but it can also create a sense of certainty that may not be warranted. One label might refer to farming practices. Another might focus on packaging, transportation or carbon emissions. Even when a product includes a carbon footprint claim, shoppers may not know what was measured, how the number was calculated or whether it can be compared with a competing product.
Zlatevska said a product covered in sustainability labels, such as a can of tuna, can create the impression that it is the better choice. But unless the labels are clear and comparable, shoppers may end up paying more without knowing what kind of impact the purchase actually has.
That does not mean all sustainability labels are meaningless. Some are tied to certification programs, defined standards or third-party review. The issue, according to the researchers, is that the overall labeling landscape can leave too much work for the consumer. In Australia, where the release focused, the researchers said clearer standards and regulation could help shoppers better understand what they are buying.
The broader challenge is familiar far beyond Australia. Food labels often compete for attention, from “natural” and “plant-based” to “climate-friendly” and “responsibly sourced.” Some claims may be useful, but others can be vague enough that they raise more questions than they answer. For shoppers trying to balance health, cost, convenience and environmental concerns, that can make an already complicated decision feel even more overwhelming.
Belinda Barton of Bond University, who collaborated on the research, said the industry needs to build trust by making labels easier to interpret.
“Consumers don’t need more labels, they need clear, simple labels that help them decide, rather than labels that raise more questions,” Barton said.
For everyday shoppers, the practical message is to slow down just enough to ask what the label is actually saying. Does it explain what part of the product it covers? Is it tied to a recognizable standard or third-party certification? Does it compare the product with others in a clear way? Or does it simply use environmental language without much detail?
The review highlights a tension many shoppers already feel: People want to make better choices, but better choices are hard to identify when labels are inconsistent. A green claim can be a helpful clue, but it is not the same as a complete picture.
As Barton put it, “Don’t assume all labels mean the same thing, and don’t assume a label automatically means a product is the most sustainable option.”
The authors reported no potential conflict of interest.