Log inStart free check
All industries Risk: hoch

Food: Greenwashing Risk 2026

Food is the most at-risk sector for warnings under the EmpCo Directive and BGH case law: consumers decide in seconds based on packaging claims, and competitors such as the consumer advice centres have been actively litigating against unsubstantiated environmental claims for years. The Katjes judgment (BGH I ZR 98/23) clarified in 2024: "climate-neutral" is only permissible if the underlying CO₂ calculation and offsetting methods are linked directly on the product. "Sustainable" alone is deemed generic and therefore misleading.

Typical claims in Food

  • „sustainably grown"
  • „climate-neutral production"
  • „environmentally friendly packaging"
  • „ecological"
  • „from regional production"
  • „CO₂-neutral"
  • „natural"
  • „fairly traded"
  • „environmentally sound"
  • „fit for our grandchildren"

Concrete examples (red/amber)

  • "Sustainably grown coffee" without certificate or supply chain evidence
  • "Climate-neutral chocolate" through CO₂ offsetting instead of reduction
  • "From regional production" without definition of region (e.g. eggs from 200 km away)
  • "Natural" on highly processed product with flavourings and E-numbers
  • "Bio-inspiration" — play on words as greenwashing indicator (BGH 2024)

EmpCo-compliant alternatives

Instead of: „Climate-neutral chocolate"
Better: „CO₂ footprint per bar reduced by 42% (Scope 1+2, 2024 vs. 2020) — remaining 58% offset through Gold Standard projects"
Why: EmpCo Annex I No. 4a (per-se ban on "climate-neutral" without direct disclosure). Clearly separate reduction + offsetting.
Instead of: „Sustainably grown coffee"
Better: „Organic-certified (DE-ÖKO-007), Rainforest Alliance, directly from Cooperativa La Paz, Colombia"
Why: Replace generic term with specific certification + origin — fulfils substantiation obligation.
Instead of: „From regional production"
Better: „Produced in Bavaria from milk from farms within 50 km of Pfaffenhofen"
Why: Define region clearly — specifically confirm consumer expectation (~50 km).
Instead of: „Natural"
Better: „Without added industrial sugar, without flavourings, without preservatives (full ingredient list see packaging)"
Why: "Natural" alone is vague — specific negative statements are robust.

Recommendations

  • Use EU Organic logo with control body (DE-ÖKO-XXX)
  • State Demeter, Naturland, Bioland with membership number
  • Link Fairtrade FLO-ID on product
  • Disclose supply chain transparently (country, region, processor)
  • Communicate CO₂ reduction (Scope 1+2) instead of offsetting

Recognised certificates

EU Organic (DE-ÖKO-XXX)
EU-wide mandatory organic labelling with control body number.
Demeter
Strictest German organic association, biodynamic agriculture.
Naturland
International organic association with additional social standards.
Fairtrade FLO
Fair trade relations, FLO-ID verifiable on product.
Rainforest Alliance
Biodiversity and social standards for coffee, cocoa, tea.
V-Label
Vegetarian/vegan labelling, verified ingredients.

Relevant court rulings

BGH · I ZR 98/23 · 2024
Katjes — "climate-neutral" without direct disclosure of CO₂ calculation and offsetting methods on the packaging constitutes a misleading commercial practice under § 5 UWG.

Frequently asked questions

May I still advertise with "organic"?

Yes, provided you are EU Organic certified and state the control body number (e.g. DE-ÖKO-007) on the packaging. The term "organic" is legally protected EU-wide — use without certification is prohibited.

Is "climate-neutral" on food completely banned from 2026?

Not blanket-wise. Prohibited is the statement without direct disclosure of the underlying CO₂ calculation and offsetting methodology. Those who transparently document reduction pathway + offsetting (e.g. Gold Standard, VCS) and link on the product can continue to use the term under EmpCo Annex I No. 4a.

What about "regional" — how many kilometres are permitted?

Case law typically assumes 50-100 km. Under Section 5 UWG and the EmpCo Directive (EU 2024/825), "domestic" is misleading for supply distances exceeding 100 km. Safer route: name specific region ("Bavaria", "Black Forest") instead of vague terms.

Is the Fairtrade logo sufficient?

Yes, with FLO-ID on product. Important: For mixed products (e.g. chocolate with 30% Fairtrade cocoa) the proportion must be stated as a percentage — otherwise the logo suggests 100% Fairtrade composition which is not the case.

Who can issue a warning letter against me?

Competitors, consumer protection associations (e.g. Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband), the Wettbewerbszentrale and from 2026 also qualified trade associations under § 8 Abs. 3 UWG n. F. Warning letter costs typically range from €1,500-5,000 per infringement.

Is your Food website affected?

Free check — know within 30 seconds.

Check now