By Abbas Nazil
Australian researchers have found that many supermarket food products claiming to be “natural” or “sustainable” rely largely on marketing language rather than verified environmental standards, raising growing concerns about greenwashing and misleading consumers.
The findings emerged from a major assessment of more than 27,000 packaged food products sold across supermarkets including Coles, Woolworths, Aldi, IGA and Harris Farm in Sydney.
Researchers from the George Institute for Global Health discovered that nearly four out of every 10 products carried some form of sustainability or environmental claim.
However, most of the claims were self-declared by manufacturers without any independent verification or clear regulatory oversight.
Associate Professor Alexandra Jones, who leads the institute’s food governance programme, said companies were increasingly using environmental messaging because consumers wanted to make climate-friendly purchasing decisions.
She warned that the absence of strict regulation created a serious risk of greenwashing, where companies market products as environmentally responsible without sufficient evidence to support those claims.
Researchers identified 69 different types of environmental claims across the products surveyed, with terms such as “natural” and “vegan” appearing most frequently.
Jones explained that words like “natural” had no legal definition in many cases, despite consumers often associating them with healthier or more environmentally friendly products.
She noted that simply being natural does not automatically mean a product is healthy or sustainable.
In a separate study, researchers also examined whether products displaying climate-related claims actually had lower carbon emissions.
While products carrying environmental labels generally showed somewhat lower carbon footprints overall, the researchers found major contradictions in certain categories.
Some meat and confectionery products promoting environmental benefits were discovered to have significantly higher emissions than similar unlabelled products.
Lead researcher Mariel Keaney said this raised serious concerns about consumer trust and transparency.
According to her, labels claiming products are “carbon friendly” become misleading when attached to some of the highest-emitting goods within their category.
Experts said many shoppers genuinely want reliable information that helps them reduce their environmental impact while shopping.
Professor Natalina Zlatevska from the University of Technology Sydney said consumers were becoming increasingly confused because of the large number of vague and inconsistent sustainability claims appearing on packaging.
She pointed to international systems such as France’s Eco-Score model, which uses simple colour-coded ratings to show environmental impact, as a possible solution.
Consumer Policy Research Centre deputy chief executive Chandni Gupta said Australians preferred labels that were clear, evidence-based and independently verified.
She explained that vague or unsupported environmental claims make it difficult for shoppers to know which products are genuinely sustainable.
Researchers have now called for stronger government regulation of environmental food labelling, arguing that credible and standardised claims could help improve sustainability across the food industry.
Until such regulations are introduced, experts advised consumers to focus on broader dietary changes such as reducing meat consumption and eating more fruits, vegetables and legumes, which are generally known to have lower environmental impacts.
