Walk through a British supermarket and you’ll quickly encounter images of rolling hills, red barns, smiling farmers and reassuring words like “farm fresh”. These cues are everywhere and are increasingly being called in to question. The term farmwashing has emerged to describe marketing that evokes the aura of small-scale, local and ethical farming without meaningfully changing sourcing practices or improving transparency.

British supermarkets have been criticised for using pastoral imagery, invented farm names and national symbols to suggest small-scale British farming, even when products are sourced from industrial systems or imported supply chains. Campaigns such as Farmers Against Farmwashing argue that this practice does more than mislead consumers. It undermines genuine farmers, distorts competition and ultimately weakens confidence in food labels altogether.²

This is consistent with our consumer research: vague ethical cues do little to rebuild trust. Consumers are increasingly sceptical of marketing claims if they are not backed by visible, concrete evidence.³

In the Netherlands, supermarket Jumbo sets an example of how to build trust by connecting consumers with their farmers through the “Direct van de Boerderij” dairy line.

Rather than relying on generic farm imagery, the range explicitly links products to named Dutch farmers and production locations. Jumbo names partner farms, outlines their sourcing standards, and engages in a long-term collaboration rather than a branding exercise.

This approach aligns closely with what consumers say they need to trust retailers. The Trust Report highlights local sourcing, familiarity, consistency and visible support for farmers as key trust-building factors.¹ By making real relationships visible, Jumbo reduces the informational gap between producer and consumer.

Notably, the concept has also been extended to plant-based products made with Dutch-grown soybeans from ‘De Nieuwe Melkboer’, suggesting that the emphasis is on verifiable origin rather than nostalgia for animal agriculture alone. This further reinforces the idea that transparency is the core value proposition.

The Consumer Observatory report makes clear that trust is cumulative and fragile. Only around 40% of consumers consider food information reliable.¹ In this context, every unsubstantiated “farm” reference carries reputational risk, not just for a single brand, but for the trustworthiness of the food system.

The contrast between British-style farmwashing and initiatives like Direct van de Boerderij illustrates a broader lesson: retailers face a choice. They can continue to use farmers as comforting symbols, hoping that imagery will compensate for distance and opacity. Or they can invest in real supply chain relationships and communicate them honestly, accepting that transparency may reveal trade-offs rather than perfection.

The contrast between farmwashing and approaches like Direct van de Boerderij is therefore not about better storytelling, but about reducing the actual distance between consumer, retailer and producer.

It’s also important to think about other ways retailers can build trust. Consumers report trusting retailers who provide good quality products, high hygiene standards, ethical practices, value for money and a robust, long-term reputation.¹ They want to see evidence that retailers are not only concerned about making profit and making relationships with producers explicit is not the only way to achieve this.

If European food systems are serious about rebuilding trust, the implications are clear:

• Name the farmers, or don’t use them at all.
• Accept that transparency may reveal trade-offs, not perfection.
• Build trust by demonstrating other social, ethical an environmental priorities alongside profit.