## 6 Discussion
Furthermore, it was found that the only group that evidenced a different ranking of the issues in comparison to the total sample was the producers, whose elasticity values indicated that health and safety and food quality issues were the most relevant. The stakeholders' differentiation in the importance of the issues to be included in the EU ecolabels for FAPs indicates that there is an important mismatch between the preferences of other stakeholders and producers that might end with sub-optimal eco-labeling if producersdecide to label FAPs or not according to their preferences. The reasons for that are clear, because if regulators decide, as expected, to place more emphasis on issues that were more important for most of the analyzed segments, especially listening to consumers' voices (social, ethical and animal welfare), this action could reduce the interests of producers to voluntarily adopt an ecolabel as their preferences are neglected or are less taken into account. Therefore, the proponents of the ecolabel must analyze why the producers give more importance to health and safety and food quality issues in order to propose actions and strategies that might not lead producers to lose interest in the ecolabel. More consensus is needed before a formal eco-labeling regulation can be established for FAPs in the EU. Moreover, the results of the SIs evidence that amongst the different stakeholders, consumers and producers are the segments of analysis which have higher values. Thus, it indicates that these two groups of stakeholders accept most the inclusion of additional information on the EU ecolabels, apart from environmental issues. Similarly, results also show that SIs for the citizens who consider that ecolabels should be monitored through public bodies and the government (public intervention) are higher than for those who do not want or do not know if they want public intervention. The results suggest that governmental trust could be a driver to include additional information apart from environmental issues in the ecolabel, probably because citizens infer that ecolabels provide more credible information when they are controlled by the government instead of being a simple market mechanism transfer. On the other hand, the low values of the SIs for those that consider that public bodies/governments should not be involved in the control of the ecolabel and, especially, for the ecolabels' owners indicate a low acceptance for the inclusion of other issues apart from environmental ones by them, which is aligned with the idea that these two groups might not be so proactive with the benefits of providing additional information apart from environmental issues. This may be due to several reasons: (1) they consider other issues that were not considered in the analysis to be more important, (2) the inclusion of the issues despite their importance might be non-appropriate for diverse reasons in certain contexts or particular products of FAPs. Furthermore, for the ecolabel owners' segment, apart from the mentioned reasons, it may be that they have given less importance to some of the issues because, as owners of ecolabels, they may judge issues more strictly based on their previous experience and consider that other aspects can be more important for ecolabels apart from the issues that they should consider--for example, the administrative steps needed to establish such a scheme. Considering that it was found that the SI of ecolabel owners was elastic on social and ethical issues, ecolabel promoters should make efforts in convincing ecolabel owners about the benefits of including these issues in the ecolabel, considering that achieving this would increase their acceptance for the inclusion of additional information different from environmental issues. Finally, it is important to consider that the study is not exempt from limitations which might represent risks in the interpretation of the results described previously and that should be considered for improvement in future studies.