Policy briefing
Directive (EU) 2024/825 applies to environmental claims made to consumers. For natural-wine producers, the central issues are terminology, substantiation, certification and consistent communication across the supply chain.
Directive (EU) 2024/825, also known as the Empowering Consumers for the Green Transition directive, has applied since 27 September 2026. It strengthens EU consumer-protection rules covering environmental claims and sustainability labels. The measure applies across consumer products; wine is not exempt.
For the natural-wine sector, the directive does not establish a new production standard. Its relevance lies in consumer-facing communication. Producers, importers and retailers need to determine whether their terminology constitutes an environmental claim and, if so, whether that claim meets the applicable requirements.
The word “natural” is not subject to a blanket prohibition under this measure. Its treatment depends on context, including whether the average consumer is likely to understand it as making an environmental association.
Policy scope and core requirements
The directive addresses several categories of potentially misleading commercial communication. These include vague environmental language, irrelevant claims, and sustainability labels that are not supported by an appropriate certification scheme or established by a public authority.
Generic terms such as “green”, “clean” and “eco-friendly” require particular scrutiny when they imply a general environmental benefit without explaining the basis for that benefit. The directive does not require every winery to obtain certification. It does require environmental claims to be clear, specific and adequately substantiated.
For sustainability labels, additional conditions apply. Relevant certification schemes must have transparent requirements and independent verification where required. A producer should therefore distinguish between a factual production statement, a quantified environmental claim and a sustainability label; each can raise different compliance considerations.
The review should cover more than the bottle label. Websites, product sheets, importer and distributor materials, social media, tasting-room materials and other consumer-facing communications may all contain relevant claims. Businesses should also review how existing stock is described at the point of sale rather than assuming that older inventory falls outside the scope.
How “natural” may be assessed
The contextual test is whether the use of “natural” is likely to create an environmental association for the average consumer. This means that the same word may require different analysis depending on the product name, accompanying text, imagery and wider marketing presentation.
A description limited to specified production practices is distinct from a claim that a wine delivers a general environmental benefit. However, farming, cellar practices and environmental messages are frequently presented together. Businesses should therefore assess the overall impression created by the communication, not only the dictionary definition of an individual term.
According to European Commission guidance reported by SevenFifty Daily, these cases will be assessed individually. If “natural” functions as a generic environmental claim, the business may need to define and substantiate the claim. The term is neither automatically prohibited nor automatically outside the directive’s scope.
Industry interpretations differ. Sweden’s Systembolaget treats “natural” and “low intervention” principally as descriptions of a production approach. The European Committee of Wine Companies has expressed concern that “natural” can mislead where it lacks a sufficiently clear definition. These positions illustrate the interpretation questions that producers and enforcement authorities may need to resolve.
Third-party natural-wine schemes may provide a route for certain claims if they meet the applicable conditions. Certification does not, however, constitute blanket approval for every use of the word, and the directive does not make third-party certification mandatory for every environmental claim.
Compliance considerations for producers
Producers can reduce ambiguity by separating farming information, winemaking information and environmental-performance claims. Statements should reflect actual practice and be supported by appropriate records. Quantified claims should identify the baseline, reporting period and measurement approach.
General environmental claim:
“A greener wine.”
Use a specific, measurable statement.Document the indicator, baseline and period—for example, a verified change in bottle weight or carbon footprint.
Undefined production term:
“Natural wine.”
Provide defined production information.Farming certification, yeast source, additions, sulphur use and filtration can be stated separately and supported by production records.
Unsupported sustainability label:
“Planet friendly.”
Assess the relevant label rules.Use a qualifying scheme where required, with public requirements and independent verification as applicable.
Factual descriptions such as “hand-harvested” or “dry-farmed” may be clearer than a general environmental statement, provided they are accurate. For quantified emissions or resource-use claims, the supporting documentation should explain what was measured, the comparison used and the period covered.
Implementation across the supply chain
Responsibility should not be assessed in isolation at the winery. A claim removed from a label may still appear in an importer’s catalogue, a distributor’s product sheet or a retailer’s online listing. Producers should provide consistent product information, while importers and retailers should avoid extending a limited production statement into a broader environmental claim.
Businesses operating in several EU markets should also account for national implementation and enforcement. A central record of approved wording, supporting evidence and certification documents can help maintain consistency across territories and sales channels.
Enforcement and outstanding questions
EU directives establish objectives that member states implement through national measures. Enforcement mechanisms and practical approaches can therefore differ between countries. The case-by-case treatment of terminology such as “natural” leaves scope for interpretation, particularly where production descriptions and environmental associations overlap.
For smaller producers, the principal burden is likely to be administrative: reviewing existing claims, organising evidence and updating materials across multiple channels. The directive does not impose across-the-board certification, so businesses should assess which claims they actually make before commissioning new schemes or documentation.
For natural wine, the immediate policy issue is therefore terminological and evidentiary. Businesses should not assume that “natural” is prohibited, but they should also not assume that it falls outside consumer-protection rules. Each use requires assessment in its full commercial context.
Sources & further reading
- Europe Is Cracking Down on Greenwashing. What Does That Mean for Wine Labels?Lauren Johnson-Wünscher, SevenFifty Daily — 2 November 2026
- Directive (EU) 2024/825Official text empowering consumers for the green transition — EUR-Lex
The industry positions and regulatory explanations discussed here are drawn from the reporting above. Readers should consult the official text for the directive’s full scope and implementation requirements.
