Food in 2026: “Regional” ≠ “Sustainable” — a clear separation

“Regional” and “sustainable” are often used synonymously in food advertising — incorrectly. Regional can be sustainable, but it isn’t automatically. EmpCo compels separation.

When “regional” is permissible: Concrete geographical indication (“from the Allgäu region”, “from Lower Saxony”), documented minimum share of value creation, traceable supply chain (e.g. “Tested Quality — Bavaria” seal of the Bavarian state), mandatory information according to the Food Information Regulation fulfilled.

When “regional” is misleading: “Regional Line” with mixed products (e.g. 70% regional + 30% EU import) without indication, “regionally processed” with imported ingredients (“regionally processed cocoa” — the cocoa comes from Ghana), “from the region” without definition of the radius.

When “sustainable” is permissible: Concrete criteria with substantiation (organic, Demeter, MSC, ASC, Fairtrade, Rainforest Alliance), carbon footprint with LCA methodology, water, land use or biodiversity data available.

Substantiated vs. unsubstantiated (examples): A generic statement such as ❌ “Sustainable regional milk” is impermissible without concrete proof; a substantiated statement such as ✓ “Organic skimmed milk from the Allgäu region (Demeter-certified, licence DE-001), carbon footprint 1.1 kg CO₂eq/L (vs. conventional 1.4 kg)” meets the substantiation requirement. Likewise, ❌ “Regional and climate-friendly” is impermissible without proof, whereas ✓ “From Lower Saxony (supply chain < 200 km) — organic according to EC Organic Regulation 2018/848, packaging made from 92% post-consumer recycling” is verifiable (examples to illustrate the legal position).

Conclusion: Both terms require separate substantiation. What is relevant is whether both aspects are substantiated separately, rather than mixed.