A new number is starting to appear beside prices, ingredient lists and nutrition information on some food products in France. Since spring 2026, companies can voluntarily display a food environmental score, also described as an environmental cost. ADEME published a consumer guide on 27 August 2026. The basic reading rule is simple: the higher the number of impact points, the greater the product’s estimated environmental burden.

The number is not just a carbon score. It combines effects on climate, biodiversity, air and water pollution, and resource use. That is valuable because many of these pressures are invisible when shoppers fill a basket. Yet a single figure can look more exact than it really is unless people understand how it was produced.

Here is what the new points measure, which comparisons they can support and which questions they cannot yet answer.

What is a food environmental score?

The score is based on life-cycle assessment. Instead of looking only at packaging or distance travelled, the method follows a product from the production of its ingredients through to consumption. Different potential harms are converted and aggregated into impact points. The result is neither a price, a number of kilograms of carbon dioxide, nor a school-style grade.

France provides the food method through the public Ecobalyse tool. ADEME says that the methodology was officially stabilised on 13 May 2026. Display remains voluntary, however. A brand without a score is not automatically worse, and an environmental score is not by itself a certification of the whole product.

The first step is to read the scale in the right direction. Unlike labels where a higher grade means better performance, fewer impact points indicate a lower estimated burden. The number is chiefly a comparison tool, not a declaration that a food is completely good or bad for the planet.

Which stages are included?

The French method examines five stages of the food life cycle:

  • ingredients, including agricultural practices and raw materials;
  • processing, which may require energy, water and other inputs;
  • packaging, from manufacture to end of life;
  • distribution, including storage and transport;
  • consumption, such as preparation and the conditions of use assumed by the method.

These stages are assessed through indicators derived from the European Product Environmental Footprint framework. They cover greenhouse-gas emissions, water and energy use, resource depletion and several forms of pollution. For public communication, ADEME groups them into four broad themes: climate, biodiversity, environmental health and resources.

A whole-life view helps avoid a familiar mistake. Lighter packaging may be an improvement, but it does not describe the food inside. Conversely, visible packaging should not be judged in isolation if it genuinely prevents spoilage. The method tries to weigh these stages together using the available data and a common set of conventions.

Why do hedges and permanent grassland affect the score?

Conventional life-cycle assessment can track many physical flows, but it has more difficulty representing services provided by agricultural landscapes. The French approach therefore adds four food-specific elements: hedges, permanent grassland, field size and the territorial diversity of crops.

These additions are intended to represent wildlife refuges, ecological continuity and diverse landscapes. They complement the sixteen indicators from the European framework. ADEME states that the ecosystem-service adjustments can reduce the impact score by up to 30%. In the method’s default values, a farm embedded in hedged or diverse land is therefore not treated exactly like a more uniform system.

This choice carries an important message: farming impacts are not limited to exhaust pipes and smokestacks. How fields fit into a landscape matters too. But turning living systems into points requires models and default assumptions. The score is a structured estimate, not a direct count of every insect, hedge or soil organism on a particular farm.

Can two products be compared directly?

Yes, provided that the products serve a similar purpose and that the displayed unit is understood. A total score and a value per unit of mass answer different questions. A large pack can have more points overall but fewer per portion or per gram. Equally, a small amount of a concentrated food should not be compared mechanically with the same weight of something eaten in much larger portions.

The score is most useful when choosing between comparable references: two sauces for the same meal, two similar ready-made dishes or different versions of the same product. It may reveal that a visible packaging difference matters less than ingredients or farming methods.

It should not become a universal ranking of every food. An oil, an apple and a cooked meal do not have the same function, nutritional density or typical portion. Environmental points provide extra information; they do not decide the balance of a diet, a household budget or an individual’s needs.

How is it different from Nutri-Score?

The two labels answer different questions. Nutri-Score summarises nutritional quality from a product’s composition. The environmental score estimates pressures across the product life cycle. A food can have an attractive nutritional profile without being the lowest-impact option in its category, and the reverse can also occur.

There is no contradiction in consulting both. One informs nutrition and the other environmental pressures. Other considerations still matter: allergies, degree of processing, price, social conditions, enjoyment, seasonality and the prevention of food waste.

A useful label should not replace judgement. It should reduce information gaps and make trade-offs more visible. When two scores appear to tell different stories, the right question is not which one is lying, but which impacts each was designed to summarise.

Does the score show whether food is local?

Not with enough precision yet. ADEME explains that the current score still relies on French, European or global average data and does not systematically incorporate information specific to each country of origin. It therefore cannot always distinguish a French tomato from a Spanish or Italian one using the actual farm practices and transport involved.

This limitation matters. Local does not automatically mean low impact: heated production, poor yields or high losses can outweigh a short journey. But distance is not irrelevant in every case either, especially when transport mode, refrigeration or product fragility changes.

Season, farming practices, crop type and the quantity actually eaten remain important. The standard score can organise part of the evidence, while traceability and direct information from a grower can provide context that averages miss.

How can shoppers use impact points well?

  1. Check the direction of the scale. A higher number means a greater estimated impact.
  2. Compare similar uses. Substitutable products make a more meaningful comparison than unrelated foods.
  3. Read the unit. Separate the total from a value per mass and, where relevant, the portion actually eaten.
  4. Keep other information. Nutrition, season, origin, verifiable labels, price and waste still matter.
  5. Allow for uncertainty. Models and average data enable comparison but cannot perfectly describe every farm and batch.

This approach avoids two extremes: dismissing the score because it is imperfect, or handing it the whole decision. Its value is that it makes several dispersed impacts visible. Its limitation is that complex realities must be compressed into one number.

What could the score change for producers?

The label is not only aimed at shoppers. By comparing life-cycle stages, companies and supply chains can identify where change may matter most: ingredients, processing, packaging, logistics or conditions of consumption. A meaningful reduction in points should reflect a real reduction in harm, not merely a new marketing claim.

For farmers, including hedges, permanent grassland, field size and territorial diversity raises an important recognition issue. Some landscape and biodiversity practices become visible in the method. This does not replace field observation, a production standard or fair payment, but it may represent efforts that carbon-only assessments miss.

Transparency will be crucial. A score is more credible when its method, default data and verification options remain available. Ecobalyse is presented as an open public tool for that purpose. Future revisions will need to be explained because a change in data or calculation rules can alter a score even when the physical product has not changed overnight.

Why is Europe testing a shared label?

Food labelling methods still differ between countries. LIFE Eco Food Choice, coordinated by ADEME and funded through the European Union’s LIFE programme, is working from 2023 to 2028 on a harmonised approach. It brings together nine partners in France, Germany, the Netherlands and Spain.

In 2026, the programme schedules real-world tests in supermarkets and canteens to examine understanding, trust and purchasing behaviour. More than 90,000 consumers are expected to take part across the programmes. The project aims to present a harmonised framework to the European Commission in 2027. This is ongoing research and testing, not a finished mandatory European label.

The challenge is larger than graphic design. Comparing tomatoes from two countries requires compatible databases, shared rules and production data that are more specific to place. Harmonisation can improve consistency, but it must remain understandable and retain the ability to reflect local farming realities.

Local food networks can add the missing context

A local exchange can reveal details that a national average cannot: harvest season, production method, whether heating was used, how the food travelled and whether it is a surplus that needs to be eaten soon. These facts do not guarantee a lower impact, but they can make comparisons more honest and prevent food that already exists from being wasted.

Seeed can play that connecting role without claiming to replace environmental labelling. Seeed enables individuals and producers to give, sell or swap harvests and local products with people around them. When a surplus finds a nearby recipient, the immediate benefit is practical: using available food before it spoils.

The score provides a standardised view; a local exchange supplies context. They can complement each other if proximity is not treated as an automatic green promise and an average score is not treated as the complete truth about a product.

A new guide, not a final verdict

The food environmental score brings several stages and pressures into one visible indicator. The French method extends beyond carbon and attempts to include elements of agricultural biodiversity. That makes it a useful tool for comparing similar products and encouraging supply chains to identify their main impacts.

It is still voluntary, partly based on averages and not yet able to distinguish every origin and real-world farming practice. The sensible goal is therefore not to hunt for a perfect number, but to combine the score with nutrition, season, traceability, waste prevention and information from producers. A score is at its best when it prompts better questions instead of ending the conversation.

Sources

Image credit

“Supermarket shelves”, photograph by Frankie Fouganthin, Wikimedia Commons, licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0. The image may be cropped for the cover format.