Table of Contents
Introduction
On September 27, 2026, the new European rules against greenwashing took effect in the 27 Member States. The “Empowering Consumers for the Green Transition” Directive (Directive (EU) 2024/825, often referred to as “EmpCo”) adds a series of environmental claims to the European blacklist of unfair commercial practices. These practices are now prohibited under all circumstances, without case-by-case assessment.
The stakes are high. According to an analysis conducted by the European Commission and cited by the European Environmental Bureau (EEB), three out of every four products sold in the EU carry a green claim, and more than half of these claims are vague, misleading, or unfounded. Nearly half of the 230 eco-labels used in the EU are not subject to sufficient verification.
Illustration: Statistics – Source: European Commission / BEE.
Few sectors are as exposed as the agri-food industry. Milk cartons, coffee pods, cookies, and bottled water have been among the most visible carriers of “carbon-neutral” badges and sustainability logos. Moreover, the bulk of a food product’s carbon footprint lies upstream, on the farm, where data has always been the most difficult to collect.
This article explains what the law says, what it prohibits, why food and beverage companies are on the front lines, and how plot-level data and MRV (measurement, reporting, and verification) can transform risky claims into defensible ones.
What is the European anti-greenwashing law?
The “new European anti-greenwashing law” is Directive (EU) 2024/825, “Empowering Consumers for the Green Transition.” Adopted on February 28, 2024, it was to be transposed into national law by March 27, 2026. Its provisions have been in effect since September 27, 2026 (European Commission).
Rather than creating a separate framework for green claims, EmpCo amends two existing pillars of European consumer law:
- The Unfair Commercial Practices Directive (UCPD): It adds environmental and social characteristics to the list of factors regarding which a trader must not mislead consumers, and expands the blacklist in Annex I.
- The Consumer Rights Directive (CRD): It requires better information on durability and repairability at the point of sale, including a harmonized European notice regarding the statutory warranty.
Since the EmpCo falls under consumer law, its enforcement is the responsibility of national consumer protection authorities, and penalties vary by country (EU Today). Under the PCD’s penalty provisions, large-scale cross-border violations may be punishable by fines of up to at least 4 percent of annual turnover in the affected Member States. Transposition remains uneven, however: according to Ashurst Perkins Coie, sixteen Member States had transposed the directive on time, while eleven were still behind schedule. The common date of application nevertheless establishes a single legal framework for the entire internal market.
What about the Green Claims Directive?
EmpCo was designed to work in conjunction with a second piece of legislation, the proposed Green Claims Directive, which would have required companies to substantiate and have their explicit claims verified in advance. On June 20, 2025, the Commission announced its intention to withdraw this proposal, and the latest trilogue was canceled (Latham & Watkins).
This does not weaken EmpCo. There is simply no detailed European method, at this time, for proving a claim, but the list of prohibited claims is fully in effect. In practice, the burden of proof rests with companies, under the oversight of national regulators and courts.
Illustration: Timeline of the directive’s implementation.
What the Law Prohibits
The new additions to Annex I are “per se” prohibitions: the regulator does not need to prove that consumers were actually misled. Here are the ones that matter most to food and beverage brands (Ashurst Perkins Coie).
| Prohibited Practice | What this means | Example of a High-Risk Food Industry |
|---|---|---|
| Generic Environmental Claims | Terms such as “environmentally friendly,” “green,” “climate-friendly,” or “natural for the planet” are prohibited unless the business can demonstrate recognized excellent environmental performance (e.g., the European Ecolabel or a Type I ecolabel under EN ISO 14024) | "Oat-based drink that's good for the planet" on the front of the package |
| Compensation-Based Neutrality | Claiming that a product has a climate-neutral, reduced, or positive impact because emissions are offset outside its value chain | "Carbon-neutral coffee" thanks to overseas forest credits |
| Non-certified sustainability labels | Display a sustainability label that is not based on a third-party certification system and was not established by a public authority | A custom “Responsible Agriculture” logo |
| Generalization to the entire product | Making a claim about the entire product or company when it applies only to a part of it | "Sustainable yogurt"—even though only the packaging has changed |
| Legal obligations presented as an asset | Presenting a legal requirement that applies to all products in the category as a distinctive advantage | "Free of banned pesticides" |
Two other rules apply under the general criterion of misleading practices rather than through the blacklist:
- Claims regarding future performance, such as “carbon neutrality by 2040,” must be based on clear, objective, public, and verifiable commitments; a detailed and realistic implementation plan; and regular verification by an independent third-party expert whose findings are accessible to consumers.
- Comparative claims (“30% less CO₂ than our previous recipe”) must specify the method used, the products being compared, and how the data will be kept up to date.
The key distinction for agriculture concerns offsets. The ban targets credits purchased outside the product’s value chain. Emissions reductions and removals achieved within the supply chain—for example, through changes in practices at the farms that produce the ingredients—are not covered by this ban. However, they must be accurate, precise, and verifiable. Companies may still disclose information about their investments in offsets, provided that such disclosures are not misleading.
Illustration: Farm → Cooperative → Processor
Why the Agri-Food Industry Is on the Front Lines
Food and beverage brands face a unique version of this problem: their primary environmental impacts occur on farms that they do not own.
The bulk of the carbon footprint occurs upstream. For a dairy, a miller, or a cookie manufacturer, the majority of emissions stem from the “ Scope 3 ”—specifically, the production of raw materials: fertilizers, soil emissions, livestock farming, and fuel used for fieldwork. Food production and food and beverage processing companies must set SBTi FLAG (Forests, Land, and Agriculture) targets, accompanied by a zero-deforestation commitment backed by demonstrable supply chain traceability—not merely a statement of principle (Normative).
Compensation-based labels were common. “Carbon-neutral” labels on milk, coffee, water, or chocolate were often based on credits from projects unrelated to the product. As Carbon Pulse points out, the new rules specifically restrict this use of offsets in product claims. These labels must now be removed from packaging, websites, and advertisements, or redesigned on a different basis.
“Regenerative” is the next test. Many brands have launched regenerative agriculture programs with their producers. Words like “regenerative,” “good for the soil,” or “promotes biodiversity” are environmental claims. When used on their own, without further clarification in the same context, they risk being considered generic. When paired with a proprietary logo, they risk falling under the ban on uncertified labels.
Data is fragmented. Agricultural data is scattered across thousands of producers, cooperatives, agronomists, field management software programs, machine terminals, and spreadsheets. Many companies still rely on self-reported surveys or regional averages. This is sufficient for an initial estimate, but it is unreliable if a regulator or competitor challenges a specific claim.
Illustration: Using the MRV platform MyEasyFarm
The good news is that the directive leaves room for companies that take real action within their supply chains. The reductions and offsets achieved on the farms that produce the ingredients are exactly what EmpCo does not prohibit. The condition is that they must be measurable, documented, and verifiable.
Would you like to find out more and talk to our experts?
From Allegations to Evidence: What Constitutes a Defensible Allegation
With EmpCo, the question is no longer “Does this seem plausible?” but “Can we prove it, on this platform, today?” As EU Today summarizes, companies must now verify that the label, evidence, and presentation comply with the new requirements of consumer law.
In practice, a claim that stands up to scrutiny generally has five characteristics:
- It’s specific. It states the impact, the scope, and the figure: “The wheat used in this flour was grown with 18% fewer emissions per metric ton compared to the 2023 baseline for our partner farms,” rather than “climate-friendly flour” (fictitious example).
- Measured, not assumed. It is based on primary field data (inputs, treatments, yields, soil analyses) rather than solely on default factors.
- Within the value chain. It reflects reductions or removals on the farms that supply the product, not credits purchased elsewhere.
- Methodologically sound. It follows recognized standards such as the GHG Protocol, ISO 14067 for product carbon footprints, SBTi FLAG, and programs such as the Low-Carbon Label and the Verra VM0042 methodology.
- Verifiable. Each figure can be traced back to its source and verified by an independent third party. For future commitments, regular third-party verification is explicitly required.
The first four criteria relate to communication methods. The fifth pertains to infrastructure: without a traceable data chain from the field to the label, even a true claim is difficult to defend.
How MyEasyFarm Helps Food and Beverage Companies Develop Defensible Claims
MyEasyFarm doesn't draft your claims, and no software alone can make a claim legally valid. What our platforms provide is the underlying layer of evidence: measured and traceable agricultural data, processed using recognized methodologies, and ready for third-party verification.
MyEasyFarm : primary data collected in the field
Any credible claim about a supply chain starts with what actually happens in the field. MyEasyFarm It is a platform that centralizes farm data: field activities and operations, input rate mapping, and automated machine tracking—including fuel consumption.
For a food company, this means working with digital, recorded data rather than reports filled out once a year. Fertilizer doses, passes, fuel consumption, and yields become traceable facts—the raw material for a verifiable claim.
MyEasyFarm MRV Platform: Measuring Scope 3 and Reductions Across the Value Chain
The MRV platform MyEasyFarm assesses upstream agricultural emissions to support reduction programs Scope 3. It helps companies meet their CSRD, SBTi FLAG, and GHG Protocol commitments, and is compatible with the Label Bas-Carbone and Verra VM0042 methodologies.
It integrates with field management software widely used by farmers and cooperatives, such as SMAG Farmer, Geofolia, Mes Parcelles, and Wiuz, and processes both generic data (regional averages) and intervention-specific data. Companies can generate farm-level carbon footprint reports, model scenarios for changes in practices, and compare planned and actual practices over time.
Illustration: MRV Platform Dashboard
This directly meets EmpCo's requirements:
- Replace claims based on offsetting with claims based on reductions measured within your own supply chain—the option that the directive allows.
- Justifying future commitments: A net-zero or FLAG goal requires a detailed and realistic implementation plan, as well as verifiable progress. Scenario modeling and planned-versus-actual tracking provide both.
- Ensuring the integrity of comparative claims: A consistent method and benchmark across farms and campaigns make “x% less” claims transparent and reproducible.
MRV for Regenerative Agriculture Programs
For regenerative agriculture projects carried out at the supply chain level, the same MRV platform aggregates data from farmers (satellite imagery, field management software, farm machinery, weather stations, soil analyses) in one place and transforms it into indicators, with reporting tailored to each program.
It draws on scientific models and tools such as Cool Farm Tool, SAFYE-CO2 , and SIMEOS-AMG, and is aligned with the SAI Platform’s framework for regenerative agriculture. For brands, this is how “regenerative” moves from a generic claim to a specific one: which farms, which practices, which indicators, measured how, and with what results.
A single chain of evidence, from the field to the label
The platform creates a documented data chain: field data is collected at MyEasyFarm, and then emissions, removals, and—more broadly—regenerative outcomes are quantified. It is this traceability that auditors, certification bodies, and, now, consumer protection authorities are seeking.
AI-generated image on traceability
This also prepares companies for what lies ahead. Whatever the future of the Green Claims Directive may be, the direction is clear: environmental claims will be judged based on data, and companies that already have that data will be able to continue communicating with confidence.
A Practical Checklist for Agri-Food Teams
Marketing, CSR, and legal teams can follow these steps to review their claims now that the rules are in effect:
- Identify every environmental claim on packaging, websites, social media, advertisements, B2B brochures, and retailers’ product sheets.
- Remove or rewrite generic terms (“green,” “eco,” “good for the planet,” “sustainable”), unless you can demonstrate recognized, outstanding environmental performance.
- Audit “carbon-neutral” and similar claims and identify those based on offsets outside your value chain. These must be eliminated at the product level.
- Review each logo and label: retain only those based on a third-party certification system or established by a public authority.
- Verify the scope of each claim: Does it apply to the entire product, or only to an ingredient, the packaging, or a facility?
- Putting future commitments to the test: Is there a public plan, with milestones and independent verification?
- Map out your evidence: For each claim you’ve retained, can you trace the figure back to farm-level data and a recognized method?
- Build the data infrastructure to measure reductions in the value chain together with your producers, so that tomorrow’s claims are based on facts.
Download the complete checklist in English
This article is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. National implementations vary: have your claims reviewed by legal counsel in each market where you sell.
Conclusion: Less green rhetoric, more green evidence
European anti-greenwashing rules do not prevent food companies from talking about sustainability. They prevent them from doing so without evidence. According to Miriam Thiemann of the BEE, the law is “a victory for consumers, pioneers of the green transition, and the planet” (BEE).
In the agri-food industry, being a pioneer means working with farmers to reduce emissions, regenerate soils, and protect biodiversity—and being able to prove it. And that proof starts in the field.
Would you like to find out more and talk to our experts?
Sources
- European Parliament and Council, Directive (EU) 2024/825 on ways for consumers to contribute to the green transition, EUR-Lex.
- European Commission, Sustainable Consumption.
- Ashurst Perkins Coie, New EU Greenwashing Rules (in English).
- European Environmental Bureau, “New EU Greenwashing Law Makes Sustainable Shopping Easier” (in English).
- EU Today: EU anti-greenwashing rules take effect on September 27 (in English).
- Carbon Pulse: EU Rules Tackling Greenwashing Take Effect (in English).
- Latham & Watkins: European Commission Announces Intention to Withdraw Proposal for the EU Green Claims Directive (in English).
- Regulatory: SBTi FLAG Targets for Food and Agriculture Companies (in English).
- MyEasyFarm, MRV Platform MyEasyFarm and Scope 3.
