User:Miemng/Ecolabel

ISO Participation
Recent years have seen two key trends with ecolabels. There is an explosion in the number of different ecolabelling programs across the world and across business sectors and secondly a proliferation of umbrella labeling programs. The International Organization for Standardization (ISO) has created standards for labeling practices within the ISO 14000 schema. ISO 14020 to 14025 series deals with environmental labels and declarations. ISO proposed three categories of environmental labels according to the aspects covered and the rigor required to award the seal: type I in ISO 14024; type II in ISO 14021; and type III in ISO 14025.

Type I (ISO 14024) is a voluntary multi-criteria ecolabel program assessed by an independent third party who considers the life cycle impacts of a product. Awarded certification authorizes the use of environmental labels on products and indicates overall environmental preferability of a product within a product category. The awarding body may be either a governmental organization or a private non-commercial entity. (e.g. EU Ecolabel, Nordic swan and German Blue Angel)

Type II (ISO 14021) is a self-declared claim made by manufacturers or retailers without third-party auditing. Developed internally by companies claims can take the form of a declaration, a logo, or a commercial.

Type III (ISO/TR 14025) an environmental product declaration consisting of quantified product information on the life cycle impacts. Instead of assessing or weighting the environmental performance of a product this type of label only shows the objective data, facilitating product comparison among buyers.

Additionally, a different category called "Type I – like" is present in the literature, which represents environmental labels focused on just one environmental or social aspect; these labels have been launched by independent organizations. Type I-like or single issue labels can be based on a pass/fail criterion, for example setting a maximum level of energy consumption for electric appliances (like the Energy Star label) or guaranteeing a responsible management of the world forests (like the Forest Stewardship Council); other single issue labels assess the performance of the product on a range, for example grading its energy or water efficiency.

International Trade
The increasing use of ecolabels by governments, industry and non-governmental organizations has led to international trade issues over ecolabels acting as non-tariff trade barriers.​​ In particular developed countries and industries have expressed concern regarding the variety of diverse national or regional labelling requirements. In order to qualify for an ecolabel exporters have to adjust to the production standards of different markets abroad which may entail significant cost, information and technical expertise. Labelling programs also tend to be based on domestic environmental priorities and technologies of the importing country, often lacking relevance in regard to the exporting country’s environment and local conditions.

In 1995, after the introduction of the World Trade Organization (WTO), the possible impacts of voluntary product standards and labelling schemes were covered in the WTO Agreements. Several of the WTO Agreements contain rules applicable to eco-labels, including the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade1994 (GATT 1994 or GATT),the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS), the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT), and the Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS).

Seafood
In May of 2019 consumers brought class-action lawsuits against Bumble Bee Foods, Chicken of the Sea, and StarKist for falsely labeling their tuna cans as "dolphin-safe.” The suit claimed that the companies were violating the 1990 Dolphin Protection Consumer Information Act by marketing their fishing practices as “dolphin-safe,” even though they use drift nets or purse seine nets which are known to harm and kill dolphins and other marine life. The suit also argued that these companies did not adequately separate between tuna that was dolphin-safe and tuna that was not.