New EU Legislation Against Greenwashing: Impacts on the Food Sector ^†

Abstract

This paper examines the recent legislative developments introduced by Directive 2024/825, which addresses misleading environmental claims, commonly known as “greenwashing”. The objective of the study is to analyze the Directive’s potential to enhance consumer trust and promote fair competition in the food sector, where claims such as “organic”, “green”, “natural”, are commonly used. The paper follows a qualitative research approach, utilizing legal and regulatory analysis to assess how the Directive establishes stricter standards for verifying claims related to climate impact and carbon footprint. The findings indicate that the Directive addresses significant gaps by prohibiting unfounded generic claims and non-certified eco-labels. The paper recommends further initiatives to enhance market transparency and address challenges in the practical implementation of the new provisions.

1. Introduction

The increasing prevalence of misleading environmental claims, commonly known as “greenwashing”, poses a significant challenge to sustainable development and consumer protection within the EU. In response, Directive 2024/825 has introduced substantial amendments to Directive 2005/29 to regulate marketing practices that falsely project environmental responsibility. Objective of this paper is to analyze the Directive’s potential to mitigate greenwashing practices specifically within the food sector, where green claims such as “organic”, “green”, “natural”, “non-toxic”, and “plant-based” are frequently employed, often without sufficient substantiation.

Previous studies have extensively explored the phenomenon of greenwashing in various industries, focusing on its negative impact on consumer perception and market competition. Legal analysis has highlighted the inconsistent treatment of green claims across EU Member States, emphasizing the need for harmonized rules. However, limited attention has been given to the new Directive 2024/825 and its specific implications for the food sector, which increasingly relies on eco-labeling and sustainability-oriented marketing strategies to appeal to environmentally conscious consumers.

This paper adopts a qualitative research approach through detailed legal and regulatory analysis to examine the provisions of Directive 2024/825. Using inductive reasoning, it aims to clarify the Directive’s practical implications for food marketing and sustainability claims. The paper further discusses the practical challenges of implementing the Directive and suggests policy improvements to enhance consumer trust and market fairness.

The findings indicate that the Directive addresses critical shortcomings diminishing transparency and genuine competition for sustainability. Nevertheless, its scope leaves significant regulatory gaps, and effective implementation will require robust national enforcement and guidance. The paper underscores the proposed Green Claims Directive—currently stalled—as a necessary complement to achieving these objectives.

2. The Call for a Sustainable Common Food Market

The call for sustainable development has emerged as a normative response to a series of systemic challenges that have unfolded in recent decades. Unrestrained economic growth, the overexploitation of natural resources, climate change, and biodiversity loss threaten to erode the very foundations of human well-being. At the same time, recurrent public health crises—most notably the COVID-19 pandemic—alongside geopolitical instabilities that have disrupted supply chains and energy security, highlight the need for a more resilient and balanced development model. Thus, sustainable development encapsulates the imperative of progress that is both enduring and equitable, ensuring the prudent use of natural resources while avoiding the intergenerational transfer of costs.

2.1. The ‘New Deal’ for Sustainable Consumption in the EU

The EU has not merely adopted sustainability as a policy objective but has embedded it at the very core of its regulatory framework. Through initiatives such as the European Green Deal, the European Climate Law, and the “Fit for 55” legislative package, the Union has established a legally binding framework that obliges Member States to implement strategies for both climate change mitigation and adaptation. A central pillar of the European Green Deal is the ‘Farm to Fork’ Strategy, which seeks to establish a fair, healthy, and environmentally sustainable food system. Current food systems are responsible for nearly one third of global greenhouse gas emissions, place significant pressure on natural resources, and contribute to accelerating biodiversity loss. Their impacts also extend to public health, while simultaneously failing to guarantee fair economic returns and decent living conditions for all actors along the supply chain, particularly primary producers. In response, the EU has announced the revision and redesign of the existing legal framework with the aim of fostering a sustainable food chain and strengthening food security. Within this context, key objectives include reducing dependence on pesticides and fertilizers, expanding organic farming, limiting food waste, and empowering consumers within the green transition.

2.2. Directive 2024/825 on the Green Transition

Against this backdrop, Directive 2024/825 lays down provisions on so-called environmental claims, i.e., statements made by traders in sales promotion that refer to the environmental impact of products. According to recitals 4 and 5 of the Directive, such claims primarily concern climate-related aspects and the carbon footprint of undertakings, including terms such as “climate neutral”, “net zero”, “reduced energy consumption”, or “energy efficient”. However, environmental claims may also emphasize other environmental benefits, such as the circularity of the promoted product (“biodegradable”, “less waste”, “plastic free”). As recital 12 further clarifies, the concept also extends to claims such as “organic”, “organically farmed”, or “biological”. Green farming methods that avoid chemical inputs preserve ecological balance in the long term and thereby contribute to environmental protection. This latter category of environmental claims is particularly significant in the context of food products.

3. Greenwashing in the Food Sector Under Directive 2024/825

Ecological food marketing is highly effective, as it aligns with the broader movement toward sustainable consumption and conveys to consumers a sense of both environmental responsibility and healthy living. As a result, food businesses increasingly employ terms such as “bio”, “green”, “natural”, “organic”, “nontoxic”, or “no chemistry”, along with visual elements carrying similar connotations—such as green packaging, or imagery of leaves, plants, or the sea. The persuasive power of such claims, however, often leads to distortions, most notably through false or misleading allegations commonly referred to as greenwashing. Until now, these practices have been subject to uneven and inconsistent legal treatment across Member States due to insufficient harmonization [1].

Directive 2024/825, with a transposition deadline of 27 September 2026, was adopted to remedy this fragmented regulatory framework. It establishes a uniform set of rules to combat greenwashing practices across all industry sectors, including the food market. To this end, Directive 2024/825 amends the existing EU legal framework on misleading advertising, primarily governed by Directive 2005/29 on unfair commercial practices, by introducing per se prohibitions of specific behaviors that constitute greenwashing.

3.1. Prohibition of Generic Environmental Claims

The Directive distinguishes two types of “environmental claims”. A claim is considered “generic” when it is not associated with a recognized sustainability label and is not supported by any accompanying specification or explanation (e.g., “green” choice, “climate friendly” packaging). By contrast, a claim is “specific” when a specification appears clearly and prominently on the same medium such as in the same ad spot, on the packaging, or within the same online interface (e.g., “green product of organic farming”).

Under the new rules, generic environmental claims are prohibited where the trader cannot demonstrate “recognized excellent environmental performance” relevant to the claim. Accordingly, a food bearing the generic claim “organic/biological” must comply with Regulation 2018/848. In this sense, Directive 2024/825 prohibits generic claims that are contradicted by standardized tests and inspections, claims for products not yet tested under prescribed procedures, and claims where tests have been conducted but their results have not been published to permit verification.

Where no specific legislation exists prescribing conditions for a given generic term (e.g., “green”, “nontoxic”, “plant based”, “sustainable”, “environmentally friendly”, “net zero”), the claim is lawful only if qualified with clear, same medium references to product specifications. For example, the designation “green” may be accompanied on pack by the substantiation “pesticide free”. Such specific claims are then assessed at the next step ex officio or following a complaint under Articles 6 and 7 of Directive 2005/29 for whether they are misleading. In such cases, the product’s asserted environmental performance must be verifiable against established national or EU standards.

3.2. Provisions on Sustainability Labels

Environmental claims embedded in quality or sustainability labels are likewise considered specific claims. A “sustainability label” means any graphic representation (including logos, marks, badges, symbols, or pictograms) that suggests a product, service, or trader has a positive environmental impact [2]. Sustainability or eco- labels are lawful under the new rules only if they are granted by public authorities or by accredited control bodies operating a certification scheme. A new point 2a supplements points 2 and 4 of Annex I to Directive 2005/29/EC. Up to now, it has been per se prohibited for a trader to use a sustainability label without entitlement, as well as to falsely claim that they used a sustainability label duly approved and in accordance with the terms of such approval, even though this was not the case [3]. From now on, the mere use of a sustainability label that is not granted by a public authority or not based on a certification scheme will be forbidden, regardless of whether the trader makes false statements to the contrary and irrespective of whether the trader is principally authorized to use that label or not.

Directive 2024/825 also recognizes “nutri-scores” as eco-labels. Article 35 para 1 of Regulation 1169/2011 permits the use of additional forms of expression and presentation of the nutrition declaration in food, e.g., graphics or symbols, to enable consumers to immediately understand the extent to which the food contributes to their nutritional needs. Pursuant to Article 35(2), Member States may introduce specific optional nutri-scores for their national territory, subject to notification to the European Commission [4]. According to recital 7 of Directive 2024/825, such eco-labels do not require certification, even when developed by private entities, insofar as they merely reproduce the information contained in the product’s nutrition declaration.

3.3. Local-Origin Claims as Environmental Claims

References to the geographical origin of food products may also function as environmental claims. Descriptions such as “from the Greek nature”, “from farm to fork”, or “made with local ingredients”, especially when accompanied by appropriate graphic depictions and colour schemes, evoke associations of sustainability, suggesting, for instance, climate neutrality. Such claims should be subject to a twofold assessment: first, regarding their capacity to mislead the consumer as to the true origin of the product [5]; and second, regarding the environmental impact of the food.

As to the sustainability aspect of such claims, this must be substantiated by reference to concrete product specifications accompanying the sales promotion. For example, advertising a food product with the description “from our own land”, potentially on a green background, is permissible only when accompanied by suitable clarifications—such as that transport within its supply chain is limited, thereby resulting in lower fossil fuel combustion and reduced CO₂ emissions. The accuracy of such specific environmental claims shall be then scrutinized in the light of Articles 6 and 7 of Directive 2005/29/EC [6].

3.4. Climate Neutrality Claims

The concept of climate neutrality refers to the balance between the production and absorption of CO₂ in the context of human activities. The high concentration of CO₂ in the atmosphere intensifies the greenhouse effect, leading to global warming and the occurrence of extreme weather events. Achieving climate neutrality at the global level by 2050 is a target set by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which has also been incorporated into the EU’s “Green Deal”.

Considering the above, when a business invokes climate neutrality in the context of promoting its sales, it primarily refers to the reduction in its carbon footprint. This may be achieved, for instance, through measures aimed at improving energy efficiency and conservation during its operations, the use of renewable energy sources, as well as the implementation of pollution-control technologies. Very often, however, businesses indirectly neutralize the emissions generated by their operations through so-called “offsetting” measures [5].

3.4.1. Carbon Offsetting

The Kyoto Protocol was the first international agreement to introduce an offsetting mechanism, establishing a system of “carbon credits” trading among the contracting parties. The agreement first determined the overall permissible quantity of CO₂ emissions for each party. Countries emitting carbon above the permitted threshold could purchase emission allowances from the surplus of other countries. In this way, an overall balancing of emissions was achieved among the states participating in the agreement [5].

The EU Emissions Trading System operates in a similar manner, applying to a wide range of energy-intensive economic activities within the European Economic Area and, to some extent, the United Kingdom. Private actors are also active in the carbon credits market. They design programs for the reduction or absorption of emissions—for example, reforestation projects in various parts of the world—and sell climate neutrality certificates to businesses providing them with financial support [5].

3.4.2. Prohibiting Offsetting-Based Net Zero Claims

Until now, invoking climate neutrality has been considered unfair, under the general clauses of Directive 2005/29, where it was not specified how such neutrality was achieved and where it was not disclosed that it was achieved wholly or partly through offsetting measures. Directive 2024/825 strengthens the regulation of this matter by introducing a new point 4c into Annex I of Directive 2005/29, which per se prohibits both generic and specific claims of neutral, reduced, or positive environmental impact, insofar as they are based on greenhouse gas offsetting outside the value chain of a product.

Accordingly, claims such as “climate neutral” remain, in principle, permissible where the asserted carbon balance neutrality results from an actual reduction in emitted pollutants, or from offsetting linked to the actual life-cycle impacts of the advertised product—for example, because the waste generated by the product is reintegrated into nature and enhances carbon absorption, or serves as biomass for the production of green energy. By contrast, the same claims are prohibited where neutrality is based on environmental initiatives of the trader outside the product’s value chain, such as reforestation projects that increase natural sinks in a specific area, including carbon credit schemes. The provision does not prohibit the communication of offsetting measures undertaken by a business outside the value chain. In such a case, however, the trader is not permitted to invoke impacts on the carbon balance, i.e., to create impressions of elimination, reduction, or neutralization of emissions normally produced.

To the extent that they remain permissible, climate neutrality claims are subject to the general clauses and the blacklist of Directive 2005/29. Consequently, if formulated as generic environmental claims (‘CO₂ neutral’, ‘net zero’, etc.), they must be substantiated by recognized exceptional environmental performance of the promoted product, in the sense already elaborated. Otherwise, they must take the form of a specific environmental claim, i.e., either be incorporated into a sustainability label or specified within the advertising medium itself [7].

4. Evaluating the Reforms

Based on the foregoing analysis, it follows that Directive 2024/825 introduces significant innovations in the fight against greenwashing, with implementation due, at the latest, in September 2026. Since it has not yet begun to be applied in the Member States, it is not possible to assess its success in delivering the changes it envisages. Therefore, in this section, a preliminary assessment shall be undertaken as regards its coherent integration into the EU acquis on food consumer protection.

On the positive side, it should be acknowledged that the Directive has intervened in a targeted manner in areas that had been identified as problematic in the recent past. For instance, the issue of offsetting has been linked to international scandals involving the “greenwashing” of actual environmental footprints, such as the one surrounding the Qatar World Cup [5]. Furthermore, sustainability labels had proliferated without safeguards ensuring their reliability or verifying their credibility. All this occurred at a time when consumer ecological consciousness has been strengthened by the global movement for sustainability, and sustainable consumption has become both a statement and a lifestyle [8].

On the other hand, three issues of concern could be identified hindering the effectiveness of the reforms: First, the Directive leaves significant aspects of quality labelling outside its scope, creating substantial gaps in consumer protection. While it acknowledges nutri-scores as a form of sustainability label, it does not subject them to the certification obligations imposed on comparable schemes. Yet research shows that the average consumer does not fully understand what nutri-scores mean, although being nonetheless influenced by them when making transactional decisions [4]. In this sense, nutri-scores can become a vehicle for misleading connotations regarding a food company’s environmental impact. Similarly, the Directive is silent on PDOs/PGIs, which many consumers perceive as sustainability labels, even though their sustainability orientation is incidental at best and certainly not certified [9].

Second, the Directive imposes compliance duties on food businesses engaged in green marketing—particularly where offsetting mechanisms and eco-labels are used—covering packaging, promotional materials, and related certification requirements. In the absence of authoritative guidance from the competent authorities on how to comply, implementation is likely to be uneven, thereby undermining the Directive’s harmonization objective.

In this context, the certification of private sustainability labels was intended to be harmonized across the EU through a proposed “Green Claims” Directive. Under that proposal, private sustainability labels would be in principle permissible only where they provide added value, which is consistent with the broader policy trend towards curbing the proliferation of privately established environmental labelling schemes. Such schemes are currently numerous, often overlapping, and prone to confusing consumers while eroding trust in sustainability labels [8]. However, adoption of the Green Claims Directive remains uncertain. On 30 June 2025, an EU official announced that the Directive’s adoption would be abandoned, but this was promptly and officially denied. Substantively, the main obstacle to advancing the legislative process appears to be the expected implementation financial burden posed on SMEs.

Finally, the effectiveness of Directive 2024/825 ultimately depends on state-led market surveillance and cannot rely on individual consumer actions, given the prohibitive cost and time barriers to accessing justice. While consumer associations are entitled to bring collective actions ex officio in cases of infringement, they lack inspection powers for market surveillance. Accordingly, dedicated enforcement mechanisms will need to be established in each Member State.

5. Conclusions

Directive 2024/825 constitutes a decisive step in the EU’s broader strategy to combat greenwashing and to reinforce the credibility of environmental claims in the internal market. It reflects a conscious shift from voluntary self-regulation to legally enforceable standards of transparency and accountability, particularly in the field of food marketing. By addressing practices such as offsetting and unverified eco-labelling, the Directive responds to systemic weaknesses that had previously undermined consumer trust. Nonetheless, its effectiveness will depend on coherent integration with the forthcoming Green Claims Directive and on the establishment of robust market-surveillance mechanisms at national level. The persistence of grey zones—such as the status of nutri-scores and PDOs/PGIs—illustrates that the EU’s regulatory approach to sustainability claims remains fragmented. Ultimately, unless consistent enforcement, clear certification criteria, and genuine consumer education accompany its implementation, the Directive’s promise to ensure truthful and substantiated environmental claims risks remaining more aspirational than transformative.