The observation is quite severe against mass distribution

Food: the consumer must accept “his responsibility as a citizen” to “align with climate issues”, judges a retail specialist

In a report, the Climate Action Network points to the lack of investment by major retailers in sustainable food. For journalist Olivier Dauvers, the consumer must also take responsibility.
“If the consumer does not accept his responsibility as a citizen, it will be difficult to align our consumption with climate issues”, estimates Thursday February 2 on franceinfo Olivier Dauvers, journalist specializing in mass distribution and author of the blog “Le web grande consumption”. In a report published Thursday, the Climate Action Network (RAC), which federates around forty environmental associations, analyzed the weight of large retailers in the climate footprint of the French and the actions carried out in favor of the climate and a sustainable food. According to the conclusions, “brands are today more of a brake than a driver of the food transition and the fight against climate change”. None of the eight supermarkets studied (E. Leclerc, Carrefour, Intermarché, Système U, Auchan, Lidl, Casino, Monoprix) provides consumers with sustainable food. “This observation is incomplete because we forget to take responsibility for the consumer”, nuances the specialist.

franceinfo: The observation is quite severe against mass distribution. Is it justified?

Olivier Dauvers: It is justified if we look at what the distributors are doing: they are not doing enough. But this observation is incomplete because we forget to take into account the responsibility of the consumer, because ultimately, distributors only sell what consumers buy. I will take the example of organic, which obviously would meet the expectations of the Climate Action Network and more generally of this subject of the environment. Consumers for two years have been buying rather less organic because it is more expensive. If it is more expensive, it is because there is an objective reason for it to be so and there, it is not the problem of the distributors, nor of the farmers, nor of the processors. It is a reality: organic will always be more expensive. To imagine for a moment that tomorrow organic could become the norm for our food consumption is to deny something which is the social expectation for discount in France. There are consumers who would like to buy organic products but cannot. Consequently, all the links are co-responsible: mass distribution is responsible but so are we, when we do our shopping. There is a totally collegial responsibility and we often forget it because we forget our responsibility, it comes first.

“It is through our purchases that we can modify what is on the shelves and then distributors modify what they buy.”

Olivier Dauvers at franceinfo
One of the criticisms of this study addressed to supermarkets is to give too much importance on their shelves to meat of industrial origin which emits the most greenhouse gases…

I come back again to the subject of our responsibility. Organic meat has been available in just about every store for 20 years now. Do consumers buy it? No, not enough because it is too expensive, by around 50%. But we must not make consumers believe that if we all buy organic, we will manage to have organic prices of conventional. Organic carries with it the seeds of an additional cost. An organic breeder has higher costs than a conventional breeder. So if the consumer at the end of the chain does not accept his responsibility as a citizen, it will be difficult to align our consumption with climate issues, this is the starting point.

Are the margins of large retailers higher on organic than on the rest?

Yes, they are rather more important for distributors and for processors, because there is an effect of opportunism on organic. Indeed, organic consumers are less sensitive to price than others. A merchant like an industrialist is not a philanthropic enterprise, it is not a charitable organization. When he can sell a product more expensive than cheaper, he does. But the explanation lies rather in the extra cost of organic which will always cost more to produce. For a very simple reason: the yields of organic products are lower, whether we like it or not.

NGOs are calling for the establishment of an “Eco-score” on all food products, on the Nutri-score model, which is currently only done on a voluntary basis. Is it a good idea ?

They are right because each time we simplify the message we send to the consumer, we are more likely to get them on board. Those who know a lot about the environment have to accept that those who do their shopping spend a few seconds when choosing the product. So even if the message is simplistic, it helps consumers. The best evidence is that we have seen a change in the sales of products with higher Nutri-scores. Sure, too many indicators can kill the indicator, but not having any is even worse because the consumer has no benchmarks. We need benchmarks. It is better to have a few too many road maps to find one’s way than to be alone in the jungle.