Labels that warn you that a fast-food burger is bad for your health should be accompanied by a warning that your choice is also destroying the planet, scientists say.
A group of American researchers tested warnings about climate change on a fast-food menu and found that they encouraged people to make more sustainable food choices.
Displaying a red eco-label on beef products resulted in almost a quarter more people balking at it than those who didn’t see the warning.
Environmental debt was more effective than a “good for the planet” green label, which encouraged just a tenth more people to make more sustainable meal choices.
The menu of the future? Scientists say their study shows climate change warnings on fast food menus can lead diners to make more sustainable choices
This graph shows the likelihood that diners in each group would select an environmentally responsible meal based on the menu labeling system. The red warning system for beef products (far right bar) was the most effective, with about 60 percent of participants opting for a greener meal. This was followed by the green positive choice label system (middle bar), which encouraged people to choose chicken, fish or salad. The bar on the far left shows the result for the control group where no labels were used
Why is beef particularly bad for the planet?
Cattle are known to produce large amounts of methane gas during digestion, which is a major contributor to global warming.
Each of the animals produces the equivalent of three tons of carbon dioxide per year, and cattle numbers are increasing as global demand for beef increases.
Methane is one of the most potent greenhouse gases, absorbing 30 times more heat than the same amount of carbon dioxide.
Scientists are studying how feeding cows alternative diets like algae that produce less methane can make the beef industry more climate-friendly.
Other factors where beef contributes to climate change include deforestation to make room for pasture or growing crops for cattle feed.
Carbon dioxide emissions from the global transport of cattle and beef products are another industry contributor to greenhouse gas emissions.
British consumers are already used to using amber and red colors on food labels to indicate that a product contains a higher than recommended amount of fat, sugar or salt.
But now a group of US researchers has tested adding a similar system for a meal’s contribution to climate change to encourage diners to make more sustainable choices.
In their study, published in the JAMA Network Open, they argue that such a system could have benefits, since animal-based food production, mainly through beef, accounts for 14.5 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions.
To test how effective this would be, they enrolled just over 5,000 people in an experiment where the participants were divided into three groups and shown a fast food menu.
These menus were identical except for their labeling system, with participants being asked to order one of the 14 hypothetical foods.
One group, acting as a control, displayed a simple QR code next to each menu option.
The second had a green footprint next to non-beef items like chicken, fish and salads, with text that read, “This item is environmentally responsible. It has low greenhouse gas emissions and a low contribution to climate change.”
This was a positive labeling scheme, theoretically encouraging people to make more sustainable choices.
In contrast, the final menu was a negative labeling system with a red footprint accompanied by text stating “This item is not environmentally responsible. It has high greenhouse gas emissions and a high contribution to climate change.”
This is designed to discourage guests from ordering something that is bad for the planet.
Comparing results between groups, they found that red labels were the most effective, with 23.5 percent more diners in this group choosing a non-beef product compared to the control group.
Guests exposed to the green labels also made more sustainable choices, but the impact was smaller.
Only 10 percent more people in this group chose a sustainable option than those who used the control menu.
The study’s lead author, Professor Julia Wolfson, a nutrition policy expert at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore, said the results showed the effectiveness of the negative-style red warning labels.
Experts have touted the use of climate change warning labels for fast food, similar to the traffic light system that warns of foods containing higher amounts of fat, sugar and salt
Animal food production, particularly beef, contributes an estimated 14.5 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions. Environmentalists say switching to a pants-based or low-meat diet is one of the easiest ways people can help fight climate change
WHAT SHOULD A BALANCED DIET LOOK LIKE?
Meals should be based on potatoes, bread, rice, pasta or other starchy carbohydrates, ideally whole grain, according to the NHS
• Eat at least 5 servings of varied fruit and vegetables daily. All fresh, frozen, dried and canned fruits and vegetables count
• Base meals based on potatoes, bread, rice, pasta or other starchy carbohydrates, ideally whole grains
• 30 grams of fiber per day: This equates to eating all of the following: 5 servings of fruit and vegetables, 2 whole wheat biscuits, 2 thick slices of whole wheat bread, and 1 large baked potato with its skin on
• Have some dairy products or dairy alternatives (like soy drinks) and choose lower-fat, lower-sugar options
• Eat some beans, legumes, fish, eggs, meat and other proteins (including 2 servings of fish per week, one of which should be oily)
• Choose unsaturated oils and spreads and consume them in small amounts
• Drink 6-8 cups/glasses of water daily
• Adults should consume less than 6g of salt and 20g of saturated fat for women or 30g for men per day
Source: NHS Eatwell Guide
“We found that labeling red meat with negative-framed, red labels with a high climate impact was more effective in increasing sustainable choice than labeling non-red meat with positive-framed, green labels with a low climate impact,” she said .
Professor Wolfson added that another downside to green positive style labels was revealed in a survey participants filled out after making a choice.
Guests were asked to rate their food choices on seven health items.
The results showed that those in the Green Label group who chose a good for the planet option were more likely to rate their meal as healthier than the control group.
And that’s despite the fact that none of the fast-food menu items were really healthy.
Professor Wolfson said this is an example of a “health halo” effect, where a positive aspect of a food, in this case sustainability, makes it appear healthier overall than it actually is.
She added that despite the negative regime’s effectiveness, most of the food industry does not want to use it, meaning governments would have to enforce it through legislation.
“It is unlikely that the industry would voluntarily adopt a negatively designed labeling approach; Such an approach may need to be mandated or encouraged by law or regulation,” she said.
The authors acknowledged that their study had several limitations.
One was that the experiment was conducted online, with people looking at hypothetical menu items and their choices might be different in the real study.
Another reason was that the menu had no side dishes or drinks, with the authors noting that a similar study examining the impact of climate change labels on full-cost full meals could be an area for further research.
This isn’t the first time scientists have proposed eco-labeling food and drink.
Just last month, the London-based Institute of Alcohol Studies argued that wine and beer should have labels warning consumers of the environmental costs of their production, packaging and transport.
Beef is considered one of the least climate-friendly foods due to the impact of cattle on the environment.
This is due to the methane that livestock produces from digesting plant matter and the environmental costs of creating grazing land and growing forage to feed livestock.
In other news…
Doctors are calling for sugar and salt limits in baby food as they warn future generations are “at risk” due to the “nutrition bliss” that sees some products packed with more sugar than COCA-COLA
table for one? Women who eat lunch consume more calories than women who eat alone, a study finds
A once-a-month injection could ease pain in arthritic knees: More than 600 people with knee osteoarthritis are taking part in clinical trials of the drug