More Taste, Less Carbon

Every once in a while, I’ll pick up something in the supermarket, check the number of calories, and have enough self-restraint to put it back. Thanks to the FDA, every package of food is clearly labeled with nutrition facts, making it easy to balance the benefits of a tasty treat with the calorie count needed to keep my beach bod.

According to The New York Times, PepsiCo is attempting to extend this idea to the environment. The company recently hired experts to calculate the cost—measured in pounds of carbon dioxide—of one of its products, Tropicana orange juice, which it plans to print on packaging in the future. This innovative move both makes it easier for consumers to be savvy about the environment and holds companies to a higher standard during the manufacturing process. Other leading brands should follow PepsiCo’s lead in publishing carbon-footprint numbers, with the aid and the imperative of the government.

The point of putting calories on food labels is so that we may not only keep count of how many calories we consume, but also compare the calories in different foods. In a world where you can choose a brand of cookies based on its effect on the environment, it will finally be in a company’s best financial interest to shrink its carbon footprint. For an environmentally conscious business, listing the quantitative value right on the box would connect going green to making green.

In such a scenario, a company would not necessarily have to care about global warming for carbon labels to make sense. Such labels will draw attention to the issue of carbon emissions and spur national efforts to discover alternative energy sources. With the price of fuel high and the future uncertain, reducing dependence on foreign energy can only be a good thing.

The advantages of listing carbon footprints, however, will only apply if the idea is applied on a large scale. PepsiCo should be applauded for its first efforts, but, in order to give meaning to the numbers, other companies must follow its lead. For example, PepsiCo’s investigations revealed that one half-gallon carton of orange juice costs the equivalent of 3.75 pounds of carbon dioxide. To most people who don’t spend their lives in laboratories, this number signifies absolutely nothing—yes, it is the result of growing oranges, running a factory, and transporting the orange juice. But if more products were labeled, a number like 3.75 would have comparative value.

There’s no doubt that a government mandate that each product list its carbon footprint would be ambitious, especially considering the cost and effort of the process. However, a tax credit could be offered to producers willing to publish their products’ quantitative effects on global warming. This would create incentives for many companies in the short run, and a new law could finish the job in the long run.

And, though it will be an expensive, arduous process to determine so many products’ carbon footprints, this is the clear next step in fighting pollution and climate change. Remember the fights between Bud Light and Miller Lite over calorie counts? Imagine if their advertising slogan were applied to the environment: “More taste, less carbon.”


Malcolm-Wiley T. Floyd ’12, a Crimson editorial writer, lives in Weld Hall.