Following the example of cigarette packs, a new study by British researchers argues that graphic warning labels on meat products could successfully nudge meat-lovers towards reconsidering their dietary choices. With apocalyptic images reminiscent of war zones or forest fires, the researchers claim, Brits could be convinced to cut their meat consumption to the levels desired by climate change activist groups and instead get their protein from other, more so called ‘sustainable’ sources, among which, one suspects, insects.
“As warning labels have already been shown to reduce smoking as well as drinking of sugary drinks and alcohol, using a warning label on meat-containing products could help us achieve this if introduced as national policy,” said Jack Hughes, lead author of the study, which suggests this “could improve public health and reduce the UK’s carbon footprint,” revealing its ideological signature.
The conclusion of the report, which (rather ironically) appeared in the academic journal Appetite, was based on an experiment, conducted by a Durham University team, in which 1,001 meat-eating adults participated.
Having been split into four groups, with three groups being shown warnings and the other group not, all participants were asked to make 20 separate decisions on various meal choices, e.g. a meat pasta bake, a fish pasta bake, a vegetarian pasta bake, and a vegan pasta bake.
Some meals were accompanied by a label warning of the adverse effects the researchers claim they had on personal health, the climate, and even future pandemics. One label showed a deforested area, factory smoke billowing in the distance, with the line added: “Eating meat contributes to climate change.”
When accompanied by such a label, meat meal selections saw a slight reduction between 7% and 10%, according to the study’s results.
Participants were most likely to say no to meat after having seen the labels warning about the effects of meat consumption on the climate, saying they found these “most credible.”
“We already know that eating a lot of meat, especially red and processed meat, is bad for your health and that it contributes to deaths from pollution and climate change,” claimed researcher Milica Vasiljevic. “Adding warning labels to meat products could be one way to reduce these risks to health and the environment.”
According to NHS guidelines, meat is a good source of protein, vitamins, and minerals in a person’s diet. Currently, nearly three-quarters of the UK population eats meat.
The Climate Change Committee, which advises the UK government, continues “to advise that supporting the public to make more sustainable choices in what they eat” is “an important part of the pathway to Net Zero.” It therefore recommends that Brits cut their meat and dairy consumption by 20% for the country to hit its 2030 climate goal.
Within at least one European nation, the slide towards non-traditional diets is however being resisted.
On Monday, October 6th, the Italian parliament’s lower house debated a bill, already approved in the Senate, that would ban the production, import, and marketing of food produced in laboratories.
“If the production of synthetic foods were to be imposed on the markets, there would be greater unemployment, more risks to biodiversity and products that, in our opinion, would not guarantee [people’s] well-being, said Francesco Lollobrigida (Fratelli d’Italia), Minister of Agriculture.
During an event titled “Traditions and Innovation: A Conservative Future for European Farmers” and organized by the ECR Party over the weekend, Lollobrigida had said that Italy would be the “first nation free of synthetic food and wants to set an example on how it can be regulated.”
Having chosen the “precautionary principle,” he added that “food quality is fundamental and we cannot agree to a society divided in two, with quality food produced only for a rich elite,” remarking on the Italian government’s conviction that “everyone should be able to eat well.”