Labels that indicate the impact of food products on the climate might sway the choices of consumers, according to a clinical trial published in JAMA Network Open. The study placed more than 5000 US adults into a survey where they pictured themselves ordering from a fast-food menu consisting of burgers, salads and other products typical of takeaway restaurants.
Alongside these items were one of three labels: either a QR code, or a positively or negatively framed ‘climate label.’ Climate labels either suggested the product resulted in less or more greenhouse gas emissions connected to lower or higher climate impact. Researchers found almost 25% more participants exposed to a climate label were motivated to purchase products with a lower carbon profile, as opposed to the QR code control group.
In the UK, Henry Dimbleby, the government’s food tsar, recently said it was politically impossible for a government to tell people to stop eating as much meat. About 85% of agricultural land in England is used as grazing pasture for animals such as cows or to grow food which is then fed to livestock. Dimbleby believes a 30% meat reduction over 10 years is required for land to be used sustainably in England, while Greenpeace argues for a 70% reduction.
Participants in the study, which used a nationally representative sample of adults in the US, were shown a fast food menu and prompted to select one item they would like to order for dinner. Participants were randomised to view menus with one of three labels: 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).
The low–climate impact condition menu stated: “This item is environmentally sustainable. It has low greenhouse gas emissions and a low contribution to climate change.” The high–climate impact condition menu said: “This item is not environmentally sustainable. It has high greenhouse gas emissions and a high contribution to climate change.”
Compared with 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 experimental conditions, participants who selected a sustainable item rated their order as healthier than those who selected an unsustainable item, according to a mean perceived healthfulness score.
Some may disagree with this labelling; intensively produced chicken has been found to be damaging for the environment, as has some farmed and trawled fish. The study authors, from Johns Hopkins and Harvard universities, said: “Animal-based food production, primarily driven by beef production, is responsible for 14.5% of global greenhouse gas emissions and is an important modifiable contributor to climate change.
“In the United States, meat consumption, red meat consumption in particular, consistently exceeds recommended levels based on national dietary guidelines. Shifting current dietary patterns toward 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 food type had negative environmental impacts was more effective than informing them that a food was a more sustainable choice. The authors said: “We found that labelling red meat items with negatively framed, red high–climate impact labels was more effective at increasing sustainable selections than labelling non–red meat items with positively framed, green low–climate impact labels.”
Conservative MP Chris Grayling
A UK politician is pushing for food to be given “eco-labels” as a low-cost but high-impact way to cut the UK’s emissions. Conservative MP Chris Grayling previously floated a Private Members’ Bill in 2019 on the same subject. Now, he looks set to speak with the environment secretary Thérèse Coffey. The revived interest in labelling foods to reflect their environmental impact comes after a debate held in the Houses of Parliament in October.
Participating in the event, called “The Climate of Food,” carbon calculating company Reewild argued that transparency surrounding food production needed to be drastically improved. This would allow consumers to make informed choices that could benefit the climate. “This is the first step in our journey to build a coalition and a consensus on rolling out a unified UK-wide approach to eco-labels,” Kit Nicholl, co-founder and COO of Reewild said in a statement.
“With the right information, consumers can and will use their purchasing power for good. This in turn can accelerate a cycle in which businesses are also incentivised to lower their emissions in order to satisfy that growing demand for greener goods.” Reewild was supported by food industry coalition the Plant-Based Food Alliance, Chris Grayling, and fellow Conservative MP Henry Smith. Also in attendance were various food industry experts, including representatives from dairy conglomerate Danone and global research firm the World Resources Institute. All participants appear to have been open to finding a route to widespread eco-labelling rollout in the UK.
Some brands have taken it upon themselves to start printing their impact on product packaging. However, Reewild claims that consumers are driving demand for the practice to become the norm. With food production responsible for around 37 percent of greenhouse gas emissions, the current food system is impacting the climate. If consumers were aware of the lower emissions associated with plant-based foods, there might be a swing to animal-free diets. This would vastly improve the environmental crisis.
Such information would be clearly displayed if new labelling systems are implemented.
Reewild reports that eco-labelling is an effective methodology for changing consumer habits. The organization claims that lower impact products are selected up to 50 percent of the time when eco-labelling is used. As a result, alongside the Plant Based Food Alliance, Reewild is calling for a UK-wide mandate on such packaging changes. France and Denmark are both in the process of making food impact labels a legal requirement. They are expected to usher in the practice in 2024
Plant Based Treaty
Scotland is famous for its meaty national dish, a ‘haggis’ sheep offal pudding. But could this iconic meal one day be phased out for a veggie alternative? Edinburgh has become the first European capital to endorse a plant-based diet to tackle the climate emergency. The city council has signed on to the Plant Based Treaty, an initiative which aims to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from animal agriculture. The treaty could eventually see the council introduce some carbon labelling on menus and transition to more plant based meals in schools and council buildings.
Green councillor Steve Burgess – who initially introduced the treaty to the authority – described the move as a “fantastic opportunity.” “By declaring our endorsement, we are acknowledging that food systems are a main driver of the climate emergency and that a shift towards plant-based diets can go a huge way in reducing greenhouse gas emissions,” he said. “Plant-rich diets are also a ‘win-win-win’ for society: they have a lower environmental impact, significant health benefits, and reduce animal welfare impacts.”
Launched in 2021, the Plant Based Treaty is a grassroots campaign which aims to put food systems at the forefront of tackling climate change. Endorsing the campaign is a similar move to declaring a climate emergency. While it is not legally binding, it is an admission that ‘business as usual’ will result in planetary disaster.
The treaty has been endorsed by 20 municipal governments around the world, from Haywards Heath town in West Sussex to Los Angeles. Signatories pledge to shun new animal farms and slaughterhouses, and to promote plant-based food in public campaigns. Other promises include reforestation, meat taxes, and carbon labelling mandates on food.
The treaty likely won’t mean the end of the haggis. But it could lead to a number of pro-plant based initiatives. These could include introducing carbon labelling to food menus in schools and a “clearer pathway for fully transitioning to plant-based meals … for example beginning with meat free days in other Council buildings such as offices,” according to the council’s assessment report of the treaty. Given that 12 per cent of Edinburgh’s consumption based footprint comes from the consumption of meat, this has the potential to reduce carbon emissions.
The Study
While the research suggests climate labels could help move the needle on eating more sustainably in a fast-food setting, it’s not definitive proof. “This was an online study with a hypothetical food choice,” Wolfson says. “It will be really important to see in the future if these results and the magnitude of these impacts would be replicated in real-world settings where people are making real choices, they are spending their real money and they are then having to really eat the foods they select.” The researchers also found that people who selected the non-beef or more sustainable option, regardless of the climate labels they saw, were more likely to view that choice as healthier – even if that wasn’t necessarily the case. “It’s really important how we think about striking that balance when trying to nudge consumer behaviour towards both more sustainable selections as well as healthier options,” Wolfson says. Ebi pointed out that none of the menu items in the labelling study were actually healthy, regardless of their climate impact. “This suggests that fast-food restaurants need further encouragement to provide healthier food choices.”