Testing front-of-package warnings to discourage red meat consumption: a randomized experiment with US meat consumers

Shades and shifts in flexitarian and meat-oriented consumer profiles in a German panel study

Consumers' growing awareness of the adverse effects of high meat consumption has led to increased attention to flexitarian or meat-reduced diets. However, most flexitarians do not significantly reduce their meat consumption and still eat many meat-based meals. This study aims to classify the large and heterogeneous consumer group of flexitarians into different profiles based on attitudinal, normative, and control beliefs about meat reduction. Being aware that consumer profiles can change over time, this study explores the dynamics of the identified profiles using a two-wave panel survey of 430 German consumers. Latent profile analysis revealed distinct flexitarian and meat-oriented consumer profiles, including three stable profiles and one non-stable profile across both waves. The findings indicate that flexitarian and meat-oriented consumer profiles differ significantly in their belief structure about meat reduction and that consumers can switch back and forth to other profiles over time. Practitioners should be aware of changes in the belief structure of flexitarian and meat-oriented consumer profiles when developing meat reduction interventions. Further research is needed to understand the reasons behind these profile shifts.

Can Environmental Traffic Light Warning Labels Reduce Meat Meal Selection? A Randomised Experimental Study with UK Meat Consumers

An important area for tackling climate change and health improvement is reducing population meat consumption. Traffic light labelling has successfully been implemented to reduce the consumption of unhealthy foods and sugary drinks. The present research extends this work to meat selection. We tested 1,300 adult UK meat consumers (with quotas for age and gender to approximate a nationally representative sample). Participants were randomised into one of four experimental groups: (1) a red traffic light label with the text 'High Climate Impact' displayed on meat meal options only; (2) a green traffic light label with the text 'Low Climate Impact' displayed on vegetarian and vegan meal options only; (3) red/orange/green (ROG) traffic light labels displayed on relevant meals; and (4) control (no label present). Participants made meal selections within their randomised group across 20 meal trials. A beta-regression was performed to ascertain the change in primary outcome (proportion of meat meals selected across the 20 trials) across the different groups. The red-only label and ROG labels significantly reduced the proportion of meat meals selected compared to the unlabelled control group, by 9.2% and 9.8% respectively. The green-only label did not differ from control. Negatively framed traffic light labels seem to be effective at discouraging meat selection. The labels appeared to be moderately acceptable to meat eaters, who did not think the labels impacted the appeal of the products. These encouraging findings require replication in real-life settings.

Effects of red meat taxes and warning labels on food groups selected in a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

High consumption of red and processed meat contributes to both health and environmental harms. Warning labels and taxes for red meat reduce selection of red meat overall, but little is known about how these potential policies affect purchases of subcategories of red meat (e.g., processed versus unprocessed) or of non-red-meat foods (e.g., cheese, pulses) relevant to health and environmental outcomes. This study examined consumer responses to warning labels and taxes for red meat in a randomized controlled trial.

METHODS

In October 2021, we recruited 3,518 US adults to complete a shopping task in a naturalistic online grocery store. Participants were randomly assigned to one of four arms: control (no warning labels or tax), warning labels only (health and environmental warning labels appeared next to products containing red meat), tax only (prices of products containing red meat were increased 30%) or combined warning labels + tax. Participants selected items to hypothetically purchase, which we categorized into food groups based on the presence of animal- and plant-source ingredients (e.g., beef, eggs, pulses), meat processing level (e.g., processed pork versus unprocessed pork), and meat species (e.g., beef versus pork). We assessed the effects of the warning labels and tax on selections from each food group.

RESULTS

Compared to control, all three interventions led participants to select fewer items with processed meat (driven by reductions in processed pork) and (for the tax and warning labels + tax interventions only) fewer items with unprocessed meat (driven by reductions in unprocessed beef). All three interventions also led participants to select more items containing cheese, while only the combined warning labels + tax intervention led participants to select more items containing processed poultry. Except for an increase in selection of pulses in the tax arm, the interventions did not affect selections of fish or seafood (processed or unprocessed), eggs, or plant-based items (pulses, nuts & seeds, tofu, meat mimics, grains & potatoes, vegetables).

CONCLUSIONS

Policies to reduce red meat consumption are also likely to affect consumption of other types of foods that are relevant to both health and environmental outcomes.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT04716010 on www.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov .

Understanding Whether Price Tag Messaging Can Amplify the Benefits of Taxes: An Online Experiment

INTRODUCTION

Excise taxes on unhealthy products like sugary drinks and tobacco can reduce purchases of these products. However, little research has investigated whether messages at the point of purchase, such as enhanced price tags, can increase the effects of taxes by heightening psychological reactions. This study aimed to examine whether including messages about taxes on price tags could amplify the benefits of excise taxes on unhealthy products.

METHODS

In 2022, an online study recruited 1,013 U.S. parents to view seven price tag messages (e.g., "includes a 19% sugary drink tax") and a control (i.e., standard price tag with the tax included in the price) displayed in random order alongside sugary drinks. Participants were randomly assigned to view a caution-symbol icon or no icon on price tags. Analyses were conducted in 2023.

RESULTS

All seven messages discouraged parents from buying sugary drinks for their children compared to control (average differential effects [ADEs] ranged from 0.28 to 0.48, all p<0.001). All messages led to greater attention to the price tag (ADEs ranged from 0.24 to 0.41, all p<0.001) and greater consideration of the cost of sugary drinks (ADEs ranged from 0.31 to 0.50, all p<0.001). Icons elicited higher cost consideration than text-only price tags (ADE=0.15, p<0.010), but not discouragement (p=0.061) or attention (p=0.079).

CONCLUSIONS

Messaging on price tags could make excise taxes more effective. Policymakers should consider requiring messaging on price tags when implementing taxes.

Developing messages to encourage healthy, sustainable dietary substitutions: A qualitative study with US emerging adults

Prior research shows that adopting simple dietary substitutions (e.g., replacing beef with poultry or plant-based entrees) can improve dietary quality and reduce the negative environmental consequences of food production, but little is known about how to encourage people to adopt these substitutions. This study aimed to examine reactions to messages encouraging healthy, sustainable dietary substitutions among emerging adults ages 18-25. We conducted four online focus groups with a diverse sample of US emerging adults (n = 28; 61% female). Focus groups explored emerging adults' reactions to messages encouraging them to adopt three target dietary substitutions: replacing beef and pork with poultry and plant-based entrees; replacing juice with whole fruit; and replacing dairy milk with non-dairy milk. We transcribed discussions verbatim and adopted a thematic approach to analyzing the transcripts. Results showed that participants perceived messages to be most effective at encouraging the target dietary substitutions when the messages: encouraged specific, achievable dietary changes; linked these dietary changes to clear consequences; included personally relevant content; included statistics; were succinct; and used a positive tone. Across the target dietary substitutions, two message topics (small changes, big benefits, which emphasized how small dietary changes can have large positive health and environmental impacts, and warning, which discussed the negative health and environmental impacts of dietary choices) were generally perceived to be most effective. A few participants expressed doubt that the target dietary substitutions would have meaningful environmental impacts. Results suggest that campaign messages to encourage healthy, sustainable dietary substitutions may be more effective if the messages make the target dietary substitutions seem achievable and use statistics to clearly describe the positive impacts of making these changes.

Impact of pictorial warning labels on meat meal selection: A randomised experimental study with UK meat consumers

Meat consumption has been linked to adverse health consequences, worsening climate change, and the risk of pandemics. Meat is however a popular food product and dissuading people from consuming meat has proven difficult. Outside the realm of meat consumption, previous research has shown that pictorial warning labels are effective at curbing tobacco smoking and reducing the consumption of sugary drinks and alcohol. The present research extends this work to hypothetical meat meal selection, using an online decision-making task to test whether people's meal choices can be influenced by pictorial warning labels focused on the health, climate, or pandemic risks associated with consuming meat. Setting quotas for age and gender to approximate a UK nationally representative sample, a total of n = 1001 adult meat consumers (aged 18+) were randomised into one of four experimental groups: health pictorial warning label, climate pictorial warning label, pandemic pictorial warning label, or control (no warning label present). All warning labels reduced the proportion of meat meals selected significantly compared to the control group, with reductions ranging from -7.4% to -10%. There were no statistically significant differences in meat meal selection between the different types of warning labels. We discuss implications for future research, policy, and practice.

Consumer Interaction with Sustainability Labelling on Food Products: A Narrative Literature Review

Sustainability labelling on food products can help consumers make informed purchasing decisions and support the urgent transition to sustainable food systems. While there is a relatively robust body of evidence on health and nutrition labelling, less is known about the effectiveness of sustainability labelling in facilitating sustainable food choices. This paper investigates the impact of sustainability labelling on consumer understanding, attitudes, and behaviour to support a more nuanced, detailed, and holistic understanding of the evidence. Using a narrative literature review methodology, the paper assesses studies covering environmental, social, and/or animal welfare aspects of sustainability labelling on food products. We found that consumer understanding of sustainability information is often limited, which could hinder behaviour change. While sustainability labelling can influence consumer attitudes and purchasing behaviours, evidence from real consumer settings tends to show small effect sizes. Consumers are generally willing to pay more for sustainability-labelled products, and organic labelling often leads to the highest reported willingness to pay. The review emphasises the importance of trust, suggesting a preference for labelling backed by governments or public authorities. Sustainability labelling that uses intuitively understandable cues has an increased impact, with visual aids such as traffic light colours showing promise. We conclude that further research is needed in real-world settings, using representative populations and exploring the influence of demographic factors, values, and attitudes.

Impact of taxes and warning labels on red meat purchases among US consumers: A randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Policies to reduce red meat intake are important for mitigating climate change and improving public health. We tested the impact of taxes and warning labels on red meat purchases in the United States. The main study question was, will taxes and warning labels reduce red meat purchases?

METHODS AND FINDINGS

We recruited 3,518 US adults to participate in a shopping task in a naturalistic online grocery store from October 18, 2021 to October 28, 2021. Participants were randomized to one of 4 conditions: control (no tax or warning labels, n = 887), warning labels (health and environmental warning labels appeared next to products containing red meat, n = 891), tax (products containing red meat were subject to a 30% price increase, n = 874), or combined warning labels + tax (n = 866). We used fractional probit and Poisson regression models to assess the co-primary outcomes, percent, and count of red meat purchases, and linear regression to assess the secondary outcomes of nutrients purchased. Most participants identified as women, consumed red meat 2 or more times per week, and reported doing all of their household's grocery shopping. The warning, tax, and combined conditions led to lower percent of red meat-containing items purchased, with 39% (95% confidence interval (CI) [38%, 40%]) of control participants' purchases containing red meat, compared to 36% (95% CI [35%, 37%], p = 0.001) of warning participants, 34% (95% CI [33%, 35%], p < 0.001) of tax participants, and 31% (95% CI [30%, 32%], p < 0.001) of combined participants. A similar pattern was observed for count of red meat items. Compared to the control, the combined condition reduced calories purchased (-312.0 kcals, 95% CI [-590.3 kcals, -33.6 kcals], p = 0.027), while the tax (-10.4 g, 95% CI [-18.2 g, -2.5 g], p = 0.01) and combined (-12.8 g, 95% CI [-20.7 g, -4.9 g], p = 0.001) conditions reduced saturated fat purchases; no condition affected sodium purchases. Warning labels decreased the perceived healthfulness and environmental sustainability of red meat, while taxes increased perceived cost. The main limitations were that the study differed in sociodemographic characteristics from the US population, and only about 30% to 40% of the US population shops for groceries online.

CONCLUSIONS

Warning labels and taxes reduced red meat purchases in a naturalistic online grocery store. Trial Registration: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ NCT04716010.

Demographic and Socioeconomic Correlates of Disproportionate Beef Consumption among US Adults in an Age of Global Warming

Concern for the environment when making dietary choices has grown as the contribution of the food sector to global greenhouse gas emissions becomes more widely known. Understanding the correlates of beef eating could assist in the targeting of campaigns to reduce the consumption of high-impact foods. The objective of this study was to identify the demographic, socioeconomic, and behavioral correlates of disproportionate beef consumption in the United States. We analyzed 24-h dietary recall data from adults (n = 10,248) in the 2015-2018 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES). Disproportionate beef consumption was defined as an intake greater than four ounce-equivalents per 2200 kcal. Associations of this indicator variable with gender, age, race/ethnicity, education, family income, diet knowledge, and away-from-home meals were assessed using logistic regression, incorporating survey design and weighting. Disproportionate beef diets were consumed by 12% of individuals, but accounted for half of all beef consumed. Males were more likely than females (p < 0.001) to consume these diets. This relationship was seen in all bivariate and multivariable models. Older adults, college graduates, and those who looked up the MyPlate educational campaign online were less likely (p < 0.01) to consume a disproportionate beef diet. While almost one-third of reported consumption came from cuts of beef (e.g., steak or brisket), six of the top ten beef sources were mixed dishes: burgers, meat mixed dishes, burritos and tacos, frankfurters, soups, and pasta. Efforts to address climate change through diet modification could benefit from targeting campaigns to the highest consumers of beef, as their consumption accounts for half of all beef consumed.

Impact of Health, Environmental, and Animal Welfare Messages Discouraging Red Meat Consumption: An Online Randomized Experiment

BACKGROUND

Reducing red meat consumption is a key strategy for curbing diet-related chronic diseases and mitigating environmental harms from livestock farming. Messaging interventions aiming to reduce red meat consumption have focused on communicating the animal welfare, health, or environmental harms of red meat. Despite the popularity of these 3 approaches, it remains unknown which is most effective, as limited studies have compared them side by side.

OBJECTIVE

Our aim was to evaluate responses to red-meat-reduction messages describing animal welfare, health, or environmental harms.

DESIGN

This was an online randomized experiment.

PARTICIPANTS

In August 2021, a convenience sample of US adults was recruited via an online panel to complete a survey (n = 2,773 nonvegetarians and vegans were included in primary analyses).

INTERVENTION

Participants were randomly assigned to view 1 of the 4 following messages: control (neutral, non-red meat message), animal welfare, health, or environmental red-meat-reduction messages.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

After viewing their assigned message, participants ordered hypothetical meals from 2 restaurants (1 full service and 1 quick service) and rated message reactions, perceptions, and intentions.

STATISTICAL ANALYSES PERFORMED

Logistic and linear regressions were performed.

RESULTS

Compared with the control message, exposure to the health and environmental red-meat-reduction messages reduced red meat selection from the full-service restaurant by 6.0 and 8.8 percentage points, respectively (P = .02 and P < .001, respectively), while the animal welfare message did not (reduction of 3.3 percentage points, P = .20). None of the red-meat-reduction messages affected red meat selection from the quick-service restaurant. All 3 red-meat-reduction messages elicited beneficial effects on key predictors of behavior change, including emotions and thinking about harms.

CONCLUSIONS

Red-meat-reduction messages, especially those describing health or environmental harms, hold promise for reducing red meat selection in some types of restaurants. Additional interventions may be needed to discourage red meat selection across a wider variety of restaurants, for example, by making salient which menu items contain red meat.

Effect of Climate Change Impact Menu Labels on Fast Food Ordering Choices Among US Adults: A Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE

There is increasing interest in strategies to encourage more environmentally sustainable food choices in US restaurants through the use of menu labels that indicate an item's potential impact on the world's climate. Data are lacking on the ideal design of such labels to effectively encourage sustainable choices.

OBJECTIVE

To test the effects of positive and negative climate impact menu labels on the environmental sustainability and healthfulness of food choices compared with a control label.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This randomized clinical trial used an online national US survey conducted March 30 to April 13, 2022, among a nationally representative sample of adults (aged ≥18 years) from the AmeriSpeak panel. Data were analyzed in June to October 2022.

INTERVENTIONS

Participants were shown a fast food menu and prompted to select 1 item they would like to order for dinner. Participants were randomized to view menus with 1 of 3 label conditions: a quick response code label on all items (control group); green low-climate impact label on chicken, fish, or vegetarian items (positive framing); or red high-climate impact label on red meat items (negative framing).

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The main outcome was an indicator of selecting a sustainable item (ie, one without red meat). Secondary outcomes included participant health perceptions of the selected item and the Nutrition Profile Index (NPI) score of healthfulness.

RESULTS

Among 5049 participants (2444 female [51.6%]; 789 aged 18-29 years [20.3%], 1532 aged 30-44 years [25.9%], 1089 aged 45-59 years [23.5%], and 1639 aged ≥60 years [30.4%]; 142 Asian [5.3%], 611 Black [12.1%], and 3197 White [63.3%]; 866 Hispanic [17.2%]), high- and low-climate impact labels were effective at encouraging sustainable selections from the menu. Compared with participants in the control group, 23.5% more participants (95% CI, 13.7%-34.0%; P < .001) selected a sustainable menu item when menus displayed high-climate impact labels and 9.9% more participants (95% CI, 1.0%-19.8%; P = .03) selected a sustainable menu item when menus displayed low-climate impact labels. Across experimental conditions, participants who selected a sustainable item rated their order as healthier than those who selected an unsustainable item, according to mean perceived healthfulness score (control label: 3.4 points; 95% CI, 3.2-3.5 points vs 2.5 points; 95% CI, 2.4-2.6 points; P < .001; low-impact label: 3.7 points; 95% CI, 3.5-3.8 points vs 2.6 points; 95% CI, 2.5-2.7 points; P < .001; high-impact label: 3.5 points; 95% CI, 3.3-3.6 points vs 2.7 points; 95% CI, 2.6-2.9 points; P < .001). Participants in the high-climate impact label group selected healthier items according to mean (SE) NPI score (54.3 [0.2] points) compared with those in the low-climate impact (53.2 [0.2] points; P < .001) and control (52.9 [0.3] points; P < .001) label groups.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

This randomized clinical trial's findings suggest that climate impact menu labels, especially negatively framed labels highlighting high-climate impact items (ie, red meat), were an effective strategy to reduce red meat selections and encourage more sustainable choices.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05482204.

Perceived effectiveness of added-sugar warning label designs for U.S. restaurant menus: An online randomized controlled trial

Added-sugar consumption in the U.S. exceeds recommended limits. Policymakers are considering requiring restaurants to use menu warning labels to indicate items high in added sugar. We sought to determine whether icon-only and icon-plus-text added-sugar menu labels were (1) perceived as more effective at potentially reducing consumption of items high in added sugar and (2) increased knowledge of menu items' added-sugar content relative to control labels, and if effects differed by label design. A national sample of U.S. adults (n = 1327) participated in an online randomized experiment. Participants viewed menu items with either a control label, 1 of 6 icon-only labels, or 1 of 18 icon-plus-text labels with 3 text variations. For their assigned label, participants provided ratings of perceived message effectiveness (a validated scale of a message's potential to change behavior). Participants were also asked to classify menu items by their added-sugar content. The icon-only and icon-plus-text labels were perceived as more effective than the control label (means: 3.7 and 3.7 vs. 3.1, respectively, on a 5-point scale; p < 0.001). The icon-only and icon-plus-text groups each correctly classified 71% of menu items by added-sugar content vs. 56% in the control group (p < 0.001). All icons and text variations were perceived as similarly effective. In conclusion, relative to a control label, icon-only and icon-plus-text added-sugar menu labels were perceived as effective and helped consumers identify items high in added sugar. Menu warning labels may be a promising strategy for reducing added-sugar consumption from restaurants, but research on behavioral effects in real-world settings is needed. Clinical Trials Identifier:NCT04637412.

Developing health and environmental warning messages about red meat: An online experiment

INTRODUCTION

The United States has among the highest per capita red meat consumption in the world. Reducing red meat consumption is crucial for minimizing the environmental impact of diets and improving health outcomes. Warning messages are effective for reducing purchases of products like sugary beverages but have not been developed for red meat. This study developed health and environmental warning messages about red meat and explored participants' reactions to these messages.

METHODS

A national convenience sample of US red meat consumers (n = 1,199; mean age 45 years) completed an online survey in 2020 for this exploratory study. Participants were randomized to view a series of either health or environmental warning messages (between-subjects factor) about the risks associated with eating red meat. Messages were presented in random order (within-subjects factor; 8 health messages or 10 environmental messages). Participants rated each warning message on a validated 3-item scale measuring perceived message effectiveness (PME), ranging from 1 (low) to 5 (high). Participants then rated their intentions to reduce their red meat consumption in the next 7 days.

RESULTS

Health warning messages elicited higher PME ratings than environmental messages (mean 2.66 vs. 2.26, p<0.001). Health warning messages also led to stronger intentions to reduce red meat consumption compared to environmental messages (mean 2.45 vs. 2.19, p<0.001). Within category (health and environmental), most pairwise comparisons of harms were not statistically significant.

CONCLUSIONS

Health warning messages were perceived to be more effective than environmental warning messages. Future studies should measure the impact of these messages on behavioral outcomes.

Designing Environmental Messages to Discourage Red Meat Consumption: An Online Experiment

Reducing red meat consumption in high-consuming countries is critical for mitigating climate change and preventing chronic disease. This study tested the effectiveness of messages conveying the worsening or reduction of environmental harms at discouraging red meat consumption. 1078 U.S. adults viewed seven messages in an online survey highlighting the reduction or worsening of environmental harms associated with eating red meat (between-subjects factor) and rated the messages on how much they discouraged them from wanting to buy beef. Each message highlighted a different environmental harm: deforestation, climate change, water shortages, biodiversity loss, carbon footprint, greenhouse gas emissions, or environment (within-subjects factor). No statistically significant difference was found between the reduction and worsening of environmental harms conditions for most topics, though the worsening of harms frame slightly outperformed the reduction of harms frame for the ‘environment’ topic. ‘Environment’ was also the message topic that elicited the strongest response from participants overall. Latino participants, those with more than a high school degree, and those who consume beef once a week or less rated messages as more effective than non-Latino participants, those who completed high school or less, and those who consumed beef more than once a week. Future research should explore the effect of messages on behavioral outcomes.