Ending the sale of peat: consultation analysis

3. Labelling of horticultural products

This chapter presents the analysis of responses to three questions which asked respondents about the information provided on growing media packaging and about the growing media used in potted plants.

Growing media packaging

The table above presents the results at a total sample level. Full results by respondent type for each question can be found in Appendix A.

Over nine in ten respondents indicated that they look at information provided on growing media packaging or signage. Almost three fifths (58%) stated that they are provided with sufficient information about whether growing media contains peat. A lower proportion – 28% - stated they had sufficient information about the environmental impact of the contents of the growing media. Some differences by respondent type included:

• Growing media organisations were most likely to feel there was enough information about whether growing media contains peat (100%) or environmental impact (60%). One whisky organisation that answered Q8 also agreed in both cases.
• Environmental organisations were least likely to agree there was enough information about whether growing media contains peat or environmental impact (63% and 86% answered no, respectively).
• While 89% of retail plant sales organisations felt there was information about peat contents, only 22% felt there was information about environmental impact.
• Around one third of Individual peat extractors/fuel users and other individuals stated that they do not look at packaging information; it is possible that this answer option may have been selected as a proxy for people who do not buy growing media.

Growing media used in potted plants

The vast majority of respondents (90%) felt there should be more information about the growing medium present in potted plants, either to help them make an informed decision (38%) or to avoid buying plants in peat (52%). Only 2% of all respondents stated that the plants they buy display information about the growing medium used.

A high proportion of both individuals and organisations agreed, though individuals were more concerned about avoiding peat (54%, and 62% among hobby gardeners), while organisations wished to be able to make an informed decision (54%). While over half of all types of respondent felt there should be more information, groups who were more likely to state that they do not wish to know included growing media organisations (40%), individual peat extractors/fuel users (28%) and other individuals (17%).

Support for better labelling

Respondents were asked to share any further views they held on labelling. The most common theme among the 126 responses to Q9 was support for improvements in labelling. Many reiterated their view that there should be more clearly presented information about growing medium in potted plants, noting this would be helpful or useful as a consumer. Others suggested this would improve transparency and accountability for producers and help consumers to make more sustainable choices.

“For people like me who wish to avoid peat buying potted plants is very difficult as they are never labelled. I think people have a right to know what they are buying so clearer labels should be required until a ban on peat is in force.” - Individual

“Stricter labelling would help me make an informed choice and increase accountability for producers as plants are often sold in unsuitable mediums.” – Individual

“The REA believes that generally it is easy to find alternatives in local retail outlets, however, in some cases there are improvements that can be made in labelling. It is not always clear from the information provided on a bag of growing media, what ingredients it has been made from and if it contains peat.” - The Association for Renewable Energy and Clean Technology (REA)

There were calls from different types of respondents for improvements in labelling practices, including plants sold online. A few suggested that clear labelling of ingredients of horticultural products should be made mandatory.

While most argued there should be better labelling to help them avoid peat-based products, a few called for clearer labelling to help them identify and purchase plants grown in peat-based products, as they felt this produced better quality plants.

Concerns about labelling

The second most common theme was concerns about current labelling practices among horticultural products. Many described labels as lacking in information, accuracy or clarity. Potted plants were seen as particularly poorly labelled, with many respondents noting they often find it difficult to decipher which materials or ingredients are present.

A few raised concerns that packaging can be deliberately misleading to conceal the presence of peat. Others questioned whether terminology like ‘peat-free’ guarantees a product has zero peat in it, or that no peat has been used at any stage of cultivation. A few criticised using ‘peat-free’ to promote products as environmentally friendly, suggesting that a product being free from peat does not guarantee it was produced sustainably.

Suggestions for best practice

Several respondents made suggestions for best practice, for example, using different coloured pots to indicate whether peat is present, using QR codes, or stating whether peat was used on a warning label on the side of the pot. Some suggested a standardised approach using one recognisable symbol to indicate which products are peat-free.

“It might be helpful to have a uniform label or sticker that can be applied to any products that are peat-free (similar to the 'Suitable for Vegetarians' leaf symbol that is standardised across food products).” – Individual

“There should be an easy to understand logo, such as that used by the Royal Horticultural Society to label pollinator friendly plants/seeds.” - Individual

A few respondents suggested that more information should be included on packaging, for example: the wider environmental impact of the product, e.g. transport miles, whether other chemicals e.g. pesticides, have been used, or educational information explaining the negative environmental consequences of using peat for growing purposes.

“I think there should be more information about whether a product contains peat, perhaps an ecological consequence warning akin to the health warnings on cigarettes, bold and impossible to overlook, should be there.” – Individual

The Scottish Retail Consortium and Growing Media Association UK both referenced a voluntary on-pack labelling system called the Responsible Sourcing Scheme (RSS), suggesting it could be explored or promoted further by the Scottish Government.

“The RSS scheme was developed as a tool to make bag labelling more uniform and transparent and is being rolled out as new packaging runs come on stream. The RSS website contains details of the scoring system and the labelling details for products.” - Growing Media Association UK

Other comments

While many raised concerns about labelling, some respondents described the quality and clarity of horticultural labelling as generally having improved in recent years. A few said that they did not wish to see any further information about growing medium on product labelling as it did not affect their decision; one business said it had found it made little impact on customer’s choices, and they simply ‘buy the plant which looks the best.’

Q10 was targeted at retailers and growers, and while only one in ten respondents answered, this includes a small number of individuals. These individuals have not been excluded from the analysis as they may fit the description but chose to respond to the consultation as an individual. Among those who answered Q10, 42% stated it would be very easy, and a further 21% fairly easy, to indicate the presence of peat in potted plants. One fifth (21%) felt this would be difficult, with 15% suggesting it would be impossible.

Among the target audiences for the question, 64% of professional gardeners/commercial growers felt this would be very easy. In contrast, retail plant sale organisations were evenly split, with half stating this would be easy and half difficult.

Thirty-eight respondents provided an open-text comment in response to Q10, again from a range of different types of respondent. There were no clear patterns in comments; however, commercial bodies were more like to comment on the challenges that would be involved in the labelling process.

Easy to indicate

Several respondents described the process of indicating whether peat is present in growing medium within pots as ‘easy’, ‘straightforward’ or ‘basic’. However, most did not provide any further justification or reasoning for their position. A few specified that it is easier for small-scale growers to label their products as they are likely to have shorter supply chains and therefore a greater degree of traceability and transparency.

Difficult to indicate

Challenges in indicating whether or not peat is present in growing medium within pots were raised by several respondents, with some describing the process as difficult or complicated. Some mentioned logistical issues, such as additional costs and resources that would be incurred, including time, resources, and printing and labelling facilities and materials. Others focussed on difficulties in determining whether or not peat has been used in products due to a lack of transparency in the supply chain.

“Not impossible, but difficult. Nurseries will often buy in young plants from abroad, the supply chain for these is very complicated often coming from a variety of different sources and countries. Plant passporting does help this but still makes information gathering difficult”. - Dejex