Climate impact labels on foods like red meat are an effective way to get people to stop choosing options that negatively affect the planet, according to a study.
Policy makers have debated how to get people to make lower carbon food choices. In April, the report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) world leaders have urgedespecially those in developed countries, to support a transition to sustainable, healthy and low-emission diets.
In the UK, Henry Dimbleby, the king of government food, recently said it was politically impossible for a government to tell people to stop eating so much meat. Around 85% of farmland in England is used as pasture for animals such as cows or to grow food which is then fed to livestock. Dimbleby believes that a 30% reduction in meat over 10 years is needed for land to be used sustainably in England, while Greenpeace argues for a 70% reduction.
clinical test, published in the journal Jama Network Openfound that consumers respond well to climate labeling on their food.
Participants in the study, which used a nationally representative sample of adults in the United States, viewed a fast food menu and were asked to select one item they would like to order for dinner. Participants were randomized to view menus with one of three labels: a quick response code label on all items (control group); green label with low climate impact on chicken, fish or vegetarian products (positive guidance); or red label with strong climate impact on red meats (negative framing).
The low climate impact conditions menu read, “This item is environmentally sustainable. It has low greenhouse gas emissions and a low contribution to climate change. The menu for high climate impact conditions stated: “This item is not environmentally sustainable. It has high greenhouse gas emissions and a strong contribution to climate change.
Compared to participants in the control group, 23.5% more participants selected a sustainable menu item when menus displayed high climate impact labels and 9.9% more participants selected a sustainable menu item when menus displayed low climate impact labels. Across all experimental conditions, participants who selected a durable item rated their order as healthier than those who selected a non-durable item, according to a mean perceived health score.
Some may disagree with this labeling; intensively produced chicken has proven to be harmful to the environmentlike some breeding and trawled fish.
The study authors, from Johns Hopkins and Harvard Universities, said: ‘Animal food production, driven primarily by beef production, is responsible for 14.5% of global greenhouse gas emissions. greenhouse and is a major modifiable contributor to climate change.
“In the United States, meat consumption, particularly red meat consumption, consistently exceeds recommended levels based on national dietary guidelines. Changing current dietary habits towards more sustainable diets with lower amounts of red meat consumed could reduce diet-related greenhouse gas emissions by up to 55%.
They found that telling people that a type of food had negative impacts on the environment was more effective than informing them that a food was a more sustainable choice.
The authors said: “We found that labeling red meat products with negative-framed high climate impact red labels was more effective in increasing sustainable selections than labeling red meat products. with positive frame low climate impact green labels.”
0 Comments