Can environmental traffic light warning labels reduce meat meal selection? A randomised experimental study with UK meat consumers.

ABSTRACT

An important area for tackling climate change and health improvement is reducing population meat consumption. Traffic light labelling has successfully been implemented to reduce the consumption of unhealthy foods and sugary drinks. The present research extends this work to meat selection. We tested 1,300 adult UK meat consumers (with quotas for age and gender to approximate a nationally representative sample). Participants were randomised into one of four experimental groups (1) a red traffic light label with the text 'High Climate Impact' displayed on meat meal options only; (2) a green traffic light label with the text 'Low Climate Impact' displayed on vegetarian and vegan meal options only; (3) red/orange/green (ROG) traffic light labels displayed on relevant meals; and (4) control (no label present). Participants made meal selections within their randomised group across 20 meal trials. A beta-regression was performed to ascertain the change in primary outcome (proportion of meat meals selected across the 20 trials) across the different groups. The red-only label and ROG labels significantly reduced the proportion of meat meals selected compared to the unlabelled control group, by 9.2% and 9.8% respectively. The green-only label did not differ from control. Negatively framed traffic light labels seem to be effective at discouraging meat selection. The labels appeared to be moderately acceptable to meat eaters, who did not think the labels impacted the appeal of the products. These encouraging findings require replication in real-life settings.