IN Brief:
- TÜV SÜD has verified GNT’s Product Carbon Footprint methodology against ISO 14067 requirements.
- Calculations include agriculture, production energy and transport within a cradle to gate boundary.
- GNT plans to provide product level figures for customer reporting and formulation work.
GNT has secured independent verification for the methodology used to calculate Product Carbon Footprints across its EXBERRY colouring ingredients, with TÜV SÜD assessing the approach against ISO 14067.
The calculations cover emissions from agriculture, manufacturing energy and transport up to the point at which an ingredient leaves GNT’s production system. Individual EXBERRY products can therefore carry different carbon values while being calculated through the same verified methodology.
Agricultural emissions enter the calculation because EXBERRY colours are produced from crops including fruits, vegetables and other plants. Fertiliser, field operations, yield and other growing conditions contribute to the footprint before raw material reaches a processing site.
Manufacturing then adds energy used for extraction, concentration and associated production stages, while transport links the various steps within the defined boundary. Where equipment or utilities serve several products, emissions have to be allocated between the outputs using a consistent method.
The cradle to gate boundary stops before the customer manufactures the finished food or beverage. It therefore excludes subsequent processing, distribution, retail, consumer use and end of life unless those stages are assessed separately by the company producing the final product.
A food manufacturer incorporating an EXBERRY colour receives one component of a wider product footprint rather than a complete carbon figure for the finished recipe. Combining that value with data from other ingredients requires compatible boundaries and assumptions if comparisons are to remain meaningful.
Differences in functional units can otherwise create misleading results. A footprint expressed per kilogram of ingredient cannot be compared directly with another supplier’s value based on a different lifecycle boundary or unit without understanding how both figures were constructed.
Allocation methods create similar problems where one agricultural or manufacturing process produces several outputs. The chosen method determines how shared emissions are divided, so consistency becomes as important as the precision of the final number.
TÜV SÜD’s verification covers the methodology rather than certifying every EXBERRY ingredient as having a particular environmental performance. The assessment establishes that GNT’s calculation framework aligns with ISO 14067; it does not mean every colour has the same footprint or that an EXBERRY ingredient is automatically lower carbon than an alternative.
GNT separately maintains a corporate greenhouse gas inventory covering Scope 1, Scope 2 and Scope 3 emissions. That inventory measures emissions associated with the business as an organisation, whereas the Product Carbon Footprint method allocates part of those emissions and other upstream impacts to individual ingredients.
Product level figures are more useful during formulation because a developer needs to understand how specific ingredients contribute to a recipe. Corporate emissions provide broader information about a supplier but cannot show the effect of substituting one colour or raw material for another in a particular product.
Ingredient carbon data still has to be assessed alongside technical performance. A colouring system must achieve the required shade at the necessary dosage, withstand processing, remain stable through shelf life and meet regulatory requirements in the market where the finished product is sold.
A lower footprint per kilogram does not necessarily translate into a lower impact inside the finished recipe if substantially more material is needed to achieve the same result. Process changes, additional stabilisers or higher waste can also alter the final calculation.
Agricultural footprints are unlikely to remain fixed indefinitely because crop yields, fertiliser use, energy sources and transport routes change between seasons and regions. Manufacturing data can shift as production volumes and energy systems change, requiring the underlying datasets to be refreshed if product figures are to remain representative.
GNT’s control over agricultural sourcing and processing gives it access to primary data across a larger portion of the ingredient chain than would be available through generic industry averages alone. The quality of the resulting footprint still depends on the completeness and regular updating of those inputs.
Verified methodology gives food manufacturers a more consistent basis for incorporating EXBERRY data into wider lifecycle work. The figures remain one element of the finished product assessment, but a defined cradle to gate boundary and repeatable calculation process reduce the ambiguity that arises when supplier carbon data are generated through incompatible methods.
