Awareness of and reactions to health and environmental harms of red meat among parents in the United States

Ethnic differences in meat consumption attitudes, norms and behaviors: A survey of White, South Asian and Black ethnic groups in the UK

A reduction in meat consumption is necessary to mitigate negative impacts of climate change and adverse health outcomes. The UK has an increasingly multi-ethnic population, yet there is little research on meat consumption habits and attitudes among ethnic groups in the UK. We ran a survey (N = 1014) with quota samples for ethnic groups and analyzed attitudes, behaviors and norm perceptions of White, South Asian and Black British respondents. Most respondents believe overconsumption of red and processed meat has negative impacts on health (73.3%) and the environment (64.3%).South Asian respondents were statistically significantly less likely to be meat eaters than White respondents (OR = 0.44, 95% CIs: 0.30-0.65, t = -4.15, p = 0.000), while there was no significant difference between White and Black respondents (OR = 1.06, 95% CIs: 0.63-1.76, t = 0.21, p = 0.834). Both South Asian (OR = 2.76, 95% CIs: 1.89-4.03 t = 5.25, p = 0.000) and Black respondents (OR = 2.09, 95% CIs: 0.1.30-3.35, t = 3.06, p = 0.002) were significantly more likely to express being influenced by friends and family in their food choices than White respondents. South Asian (OR = 3.24,95% CIs: 2.17-4.84, t = 5.74, p = 0.000) and Black (OR = 2.02,95% CIs: 1.21-3.39, t = 2.69, p = 0.007) respondents were also both significantly more likely to report they would want to eat similarly to their friends and family than White respondents. Statistical analyses suggested some gender and socioeconomic differences across and among ethnic groups, which are reported and discussed. The differences in meat consumption behaviors and norm conformity between ethnic groups raises the prospect that interventions that leverage social norms may be more effective in South Asian groups than Black and White groups in the UK.

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.

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.

'Nutritional Footprint' in the Food, Meals and HoReCa Sectors: A Review

Nowadays, the food industry is integrating environmental, social, and health parameters to increase its sustainable impact. To do this, they are using new tools to calculate the potential efficiency of nutritional products with lower levels of environmental impact. One of these tools is called the 'nutritional footprint', created by Wuppertal Institute for Climate, Environment and Energy GmbH. This study aims to review this concept and clarify its historical development, its use in several sectors of the food industry, and its transformation from a manual to an online tool. Results reflected that it is a suitable indicator that integrates nutritional, environmental, and social-economic dimensions to help the decision-making process in the procurement of more sustainable products and, although it is limited to Germany due to the use of the national standard nutritional intakes of Germany, its importance lies in the fact that is a promising instrument to promote environmental sustainability in the context of food, meals, and the hotel, restaurant and catering (HoReCa) sectors.

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.

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.

Health- or Environment-Focused Text Messages as a Potential Strategy to Increase Plant-Based Eating among Young Adults: An Exploratory Study

Previous plant-based diet (PBD) adoption strategies have primarily focused on health rather than environmental rationale and meat reduction rather than plant-based protein promotion. In this study, we explored the effect of a theory-informed text-message intervention on dietary intentions and behaviors in young adult omnivores and the potential explanatory role of PBD beliefs, subjective norm, self-efficacy, moral norm, and health and environmental values. Participants completed baseline questionnaires and reported dietary intake before being randomly assigned to receive 2–3 health- or environment-focused text messages per week for eight weeks and then repeated baseline assessments. Although we did not see significant changes in meat or plant protein intake, we did observe a marked decrease in intentions to consume animal protein and a marginal increase in fruit and vegetable consumption intention. We identified subjective norms, self-efficacy, and moral satisfaction as the strongest predictors of changes in intention to consume animal or plant protein. Although few group differences were observed, those receiving environment-focused text messages experienced a greater change in values and were more likely to increase vegetable intake. Messages that improve sustainability awareness and provide practical adoption strategies may be part of an effective strategy to influence PBD intake among young adults.