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

Grummon, Anna H.; Musicus, Aviva A.; Salvia, Meg G.; Thorndike, Anne N.; Rimm, Eric B.

doi:10.1016/j.jand.2022.10.007

Cited by 9 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 70 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…One simulation modeling study, for example, projected that a tax on both red and processed meat would increase purchases of poultry, dairy, and eggs, in line with our findings that the red meat tax increased selection of some types of poultry [ 33 ]. Similarly, one randomized trial of climate warning labels on restaurant menu items containing red meat found that the warnings increased participants’ likelihood of selecting items with chicken or fish and their likelihood of selecting salads [ 39 ], and another found that health messages about red meat increased likelihood of selecting a restaurant menu item containing poultry or fish and environmental messages increased likelihood of selecting a vegetarian item [ 65 ]. Together with prior literature, our results highlight the importance of examining consumers’ overall purchase patterns in response to policies targeting red meat, including purchases of both red meat and non-red-meat foods.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Willits-Smith,

Taillie,

Jaacks

et al. 2024

Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Willits-Smith,

Taillie,

Jaacks

et al. 2024

Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Put simply, it is unknown whether plant burgers are increasing the sales of other meat-based products through the "veto-proof" group effect. Moreover, while messages concerning animal welfare and the personal and environmental health effects of reducing red meat consumption seem to work at full-service dining establishments, none of these messages influence red meat selection from quick-service outlets [249], indicating that the central problem lies with the fast-food outlets and all that they represent. These outlets are not being supplied by bucolic family farms prioritizing animal welfare [250]; in the US, a tiny minority of facilities, less than 6%, produce 89% of the animals and about 85% of the greenhouse gas emissions of all animal production [251].…”

Section: Where To From Here?mentioning

confidence: 98%

Beyond Plants: The Ultra-Processing of Global Diets Is Harming the Health of People, Places, and Planet

Prescott

D’Adamo

Holton

et al. 2023

IJERPH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Global food systems are a central issue for personal and planetary health in the Anthropocene. One aspect of major concern is the dramatic global spread of ultra-processed convenience foods in the last 75 years, which is linked with the rising human burden of disease and growing sustainability and environmental health challenges. However, there are also calls to radically transform global food systems, from animal to plant-derived protein sources, which may have unintended consequences. Commercial entities have moved toward this “great plant transition” with vigor. Whether motivated by profit or genuine environmental concern, this effort has facilitated the emergence of novel ultra-processed “plant-based” commercial products devoid of nutrients and fiber, and sometimes inclusive of high sugar, industrial fats, and synthetic additives. These and other ingredients combined into “plant-based” foods are often assumed to be healthy and lower in calorie content. However, the available evidence indicates that many of these products can potentially compromise health at all scales—of people, places, and planet. In this viewpoint, we summarize and reflect on the evidence and discussions presented at the Nova Network planetary health meeting on the “Future of Food”, which had a particular focus on the encroachment of ultra-processed foods into the global food supply, including the plant-sourced animal protein alternatives (and the collective of ingredients therein) that are finding their way into global fast-food chains. We contend that while there has been much uncritical media attention given to the environmental impact of protein and macronutrient sources—meat vs. novel soy/pea protein burgers, etc.—the impact of the heavy industrial processing on both human and environmental health is significant but often overlooked, including effects on cognition and mental health. This calls for a more nuanced discourse that considers these complexities and refocuses priorities and value systems towards mutualistic solutions, with co-benefits for individuals, local communities, and global ecology.

show abstract

“…Recent research exploring the best ways to talk about these benefits suggests that highlighting the environmental impacts may be one of the more effective messaging strategies. For example, one recent study found that integrating environmental messages into a full-service restaurant menu led to the greatest decline in meat choices compared to other message types (i.e., health, animal welfare) (Grummon et al 2023), with other studies showing similar outcomes (Piester et al 2020;Shreedhar and Galizzi 2021). Environmental messages may influence choice by providing the information that diners need to make decisions that align with their personal values.…”

Section: Further Readingmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Food Service Playbook for Promoting Sustainable Food Choices

Pollicino,

Blondin,

Attwood

2024

WRIPUB

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

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

Cited by 9 publications

References 70 publications

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

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

Beyond Plants: The Ultra-Processing of Global Diets Is Harming the Health of People, Places, and Planet

The Food Service Playbook for Promoting Sustainable Food Choices

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About