Frustrated the simple action of buying a muesli bar had become a major endeavour, Kate Oktay believed there had to be a better way to find a treat for her daughter’s lunch box that was healthy and good for the environment.
"I like to do the right thing by the environment ... but it was really frustrating, I couldn’t just go into a supermarket and easily know what was good and bad."
So she rang around people and roped in data analyst Dr Dave Angelson to help. His daughter wanted to pick out her own school lunch and often asked what she could select from the hundreds of muesli bars on the supermarket shelf.
"I gave her some broad parameters ... but one of the things that was surprising to me was how difficult it was. There wasn’t an easy shorthand ... It’s master’s level inquiry when you’re just trying to take 10 seconds to choose a muesli bar."
So the pair, believing there had to be a solution to the problem, began investigating what developed into a major project. Their aim was to rate every muesli bar in New Zealand as proof of concept for the possibility of expanding this to cover every processed food item sold in New Zealand supermarkets.
"It was a bit daunting."
With funding and support from Subak, an organisation which funds and scales data-based projects that fight climate change, they pulled together several databases and methodological processes to analyse each product on the carbon footprint of each ingredient and the overall cost to the environment. From there they were able to generate an environmental grade to inform everyday shopper’s choices.
However, it was not an easy process. They found there were fewer than 1000 ingredients in the products on supermarket shelves and about 40% had their carbon footprint, from field to point of sale, assessed so they had to seek out global databases for the rest.
Then they had to go up against companies reluctant to divulge where their ingredients came from and found German methodology that could help fill the gaps.
"A few manufacturers were really transparent and gave us a breakdown but quite a few were not forthcoming. It took a lot of effort."
But now that they have shown it is possible to assess the carbon footprint per gram of product, it is possible to rank muesli bars from A to D.
"Now there is a simple answer for my daughter, simply pick from the A category. We are not asserting A is virtuous full-stop but if you buy this anyway it is a better choice — the least worst option."
They found price was not an indicator with one of the "best" products a packet which cost $2.50.
"Not only that, but often those that are charging a higher price point do so by claiming to be "natural" and organic; "good for you and good for the environment", but often they are nowhere near as good as those who make no such claims."
What they did not expect to find was that in general a product that was better for you health-wise was also better for the planet.
"It is a handy shortcut: if you are going to buy muesli bars, basically, if it has got a high percentage of fruit and simple grains, you are good; on the other hand, if it looks like junk for you — with sugar and other sweeteners, things that need a load of processing — then it is not just bad for you, it is bad for the planet too. Lots of pretend yoghurt, terrible chocolate, loads of processing means not great for anyone or anything."
For Angelson what was most surprising was finding such a wide variance between the highest footprint and the lowest.
"Here it was three times between worst and best, the carbon footprint for the most carbon intensive muesli bar is three times as much as the least. Starting out I wouldn’t have expected it to have been that much."
Where a product is sourced from, where it is manufactured and what it consists of has a significant impact on its carbon footprint.
"Ultimately we want to give credit to the manufacturers who do a good job.
"Harraways uses local oats. Unless you are assessing them on this global food metric they don’t get too much credit for local sourcing and local manufacturing and minimal shipping."
He hopes studies like these will encourage manufacturers to chose alternative ingredients with lower carbon footprints.
"Often it isn’t more expensive or more difficult to do so, it’s just putting in there as part of the decision making," Oktay says.
Some brands with environmentally-positive packaging, such as green and brown colouring or nature images had high carbon footprints.
When they surveyed people to see what they used to judge a product’s environmental credentials, the most common thing was if the packaging was recyclable.
"Less than 10% of plastics globally are recyclable. So it’s not relevant to the carbon footprint, it doesn’t give people a good insight," Angelson says.
"What is available is misleading, sometimes purposely so."
They believe the project proves the concept and hope it has shown it is doable to assess more products in that way. It gives manufacturers an opportunity to get credit for using lower-carbon ingredients and processes, retailers the ability to showcase those products, policy makers a source of information at the individual processed food level and gives consumers the ability to choose easily.
"We’re interested in looking for a partner or someone who wants to roll it out. I would love to see the government funding something like this so you can walk into the supermarket and just tell what’s good and what’s bad."
Oktay believes consumers can push for change by buying products that are better for them and the environment especially when there is no difference in price.
"We need to make change. There are more of us than you would think that care ... making a good choice at the supermarket is a start."
The results of the project can be found on the website thegoodrating.org
