The issue with eco lableing is community awareness. There are fairly large trends here in Oz to do with this issue, however, it's still a matter of buyer beware. The way I see it, if you don't know what you're buying, don't buy it. One reason consumers don't understand the issues with purchasing seafood products as opposed to red meat for instance, is that as was stated in the above article, consumption of fish products is on the rise. That leads to the fact that general awareness of quality right down to species identification is still part of a learning curve. It helps that retailers are now expected to lable fish correctly and can be prosecuted for not doing so, particularly with imported products.

:::tap-tap::: Is this thing on? I met this great girl, butterfish...

Thanks Dan.:thumb: I see the fly in the ointment as the determining of these numbers can be highly subjective and subject to prejudice. Do you think the numbers for beef would be skewed if the head of PETA determined them? That's a ridiculous extreme but you see where I'm going.

Also, if you choose A, the carbon number is 10% less than B, but bringing A to market fouls half the Worlds fresh water in the process, you really can't make an intelligent choice based on the carbon number alone.

Nobody has ever invented a system, that I can't criticize. :lol2:

xoxoxoBruce, you are absolutely right on both counts.

Labelling has to be standardised and regulated, rather than managed by the retailer or another

With regard to the complexity of the ethical decision, food will not only be labelled according to its carbon footprint. Organic, Fair Trade, and of course the labelling that this post was about, for example, all have different criteria that can show one product in different lights.

This is a good thing - the social and environmental impact of our food is complex and consumers should understand that.