Background Reducing red meat is a strategy to improve public health and mitigate climate change in the United States and other high-income countries. Policies requiring warnings on the front of red meat packages are a promising intervention to shift consumers towards healthier and more sustainable food choices. We aimed to explore participants’ reactions to health and environmental warning messages about red meat. Methods Between June and July 2020, we recruited a national convenience sample of US red meat consumers (n = 1,235; mean age 44 years) for an online survey. Participants were randomly assigned to one of four label conditions: no-label control, health warning, environment warning, and combined health and environment warning (both warnings shown side-by-side). Participants viewed three types of burritos (red meat [steak], chicken, and vegetarian) and selected their preferred item (primary outcome), the item they perceived to be most damaging to health, and the item they perceived to be most damaging to the environment (secondary outcomes). Participants then viewed their assigned warning on a series of other red meat products (no-label control participants were randomly re-assigned to one of the warning conditions) and rated the warnings on perceived message effectiveness, believability, negative emotions, perceived risk, attention, and learning something new. Finally, participants reported their intentions to reduce red meat consumption. Results There were no significant differences in selection of the steak burrito between label conditions or in selection of the item most damaging to the environment. Those exposed to the health warning were more likely to select the steak burrito as most damaging to health compared to those exposed to other label conditions (health 73 %, combined 64 %, environment 60 %, no-label control 63 %, p < 0.05). The combined and health warnings elicited higher perceived message effectiveness ratings than the environment warning (combined mean 2.91, health 2.84, environment 2.61, p < 0.05). Conclusions Warnings did not have a significant effect on item preference in the choice experiment. However, combined and health warnings performed better than the environment warning across a variety of warning label reaction measures. More research will be needed to understand whether warnings elicit behavioral change in real-world environments. Trial registration Analyses and hypotheses were preregistered on https://aspredicted.org/ph7mb.pdf on 23 June 2020.
Objective: Evidence of the health and environmental harms of red meat is growing, yet little is known about which harms may be most impactful to include in meat reduction messages. This study examined which harms consumers are most aware of and which most discourage them from wanting to eat red meat. Design: Within-subjects randomized experiment. Participants responded to questions about their awareness of, and perceived discouragement in response to, eight health and eight environmental harms of red meat presented in random order. Discouragement was assessed on a 1-to-5 Likert-type scale. Setting: Online survey. Participants: 544 US parents. Results: A minority of participants reported awareness that red meat contributes to health harms (ranging from 8% awareness for prostate cancer to 28% for heart disease) or environmental harms (ranging from 13% for water shortages and deforestation to 22% for climate change). Among specific harms, heart disease elicited the most discouragement (mean=2.82 out of 5), followed by early death (mean=2.79) and plants and animals going extinct (mean=2.75), though most harms elicited similar discouragement (range of means, 2.60 to 2.82). In multivariable analyses, participants who were younger, identified as Black, identified as politically liberal, had higher general perceptions that red meat is bad for health, and had higher usual red meat consumption reported being more discouraged from wanting to eat red meat in response to health and environmental harms (all p<0.05). Conclusions: Messages about a variety of health and environmental harms of red meat could inform consumers and motivate reductions in red meat consumption.
We explored caregivers’ experiences with food insecurity screening in a primary care setting and the impact of resources provided. English- and Spanish-speaking food insecure caregivers of children aged 1 to 5 years were recruited. In-depth individual semistructured interviews were conducted (n = 17) eliciting caregivers’ experiences with food insecurity, clinic screening, and resources provided. Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Interviews were double-coded and thematic analysis was used to identify themes and subthemes. All caregivers described multiple and repeat experiences with food insecurity. Food insecurity screening was acceptable, but families were not always connected with resources. Caregivers described WIC (Women, Infants, and Children) as the most commonly used program to address food insecurity and infrequently utilized other food insecurity resources. Screening for food insecurity in primary care was generally well accepted by this sample of food insecure caregivers. Future studies are needed to determine how to improve connecting resources with families most in need.
Simulated online grocery store platforms are innovative tools for studying nutrition-related policies and point-of-selection/point-of-purchase interventions in online retail settings, yet there is no clear guidance on how to develop these platforms for experimental research. Thus, we created a standardized guide for the development of an online grocery store, including a detailed description of (1) methods for acquiring and cleaning online grocery store data, and (2) how to design a two-dimensional online grocery store experimental platform. We provide guidance on how to address product categorization, product order/sorting and product details, including how to identify outliers and conflicting nutritional information and methods for standardizing prices. We also provide details regarding our process of “tagging” food items that can be leveraged by future studies examining policies and point-of-selection/point-of-purchase interventions targeting red and processed meat and fruits and vegetables. We experienced several challenges, including obtaining accurate and up-to-date product information and images, and accounting for the presence of store-brand products. Regardless, the methodology described herein will enable researchers to examine the effects of a wide array of nutrition-related policies and interventions on food purchasing behaviors in online retail settings, and can be used as a template for reporting procedures in future research.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.