In the near future, you may start to see warning labels on meat, but it won’t have anything to do with overconsumption. It’s to guilt you into saving the planet.
Academics at Durham University in the UK have a new way to get you to eat bugs so you’ll save the planet.
They want labels placed on meat products warning consumers that every time they take a bite of steak or eat a burger, they are harming the planet.
There is no justification for demonising a dietary preference enjoyed by the vast bulk of the British public; those wanting to push plant-based alternatives should do so via the free market, not bureaucrats ⬇️
🗞Cigarette-style warnings on meat products https://t.co/DgCYgCSJGf
— Countryside Alliance Press Office (@CApressoffice) November 1, 2023
According to the study warning labels did change behavior…well…sort of.
It indicates that the researchers did not find proof that health warning labels were more effective at reducing the selection of meat meals compared to labels warning about climate change and pandemics. However, among the labels tested, those related to climate change garnered the most support from participants in terms of being implemented as official policies.
In the preliminary study materials available online, it was discovered that participants considered the effect of meat consumption on climate change to be more significant than its impact on human health and the potential risk of future pandemics. Surprisingly, it was found that concerns about the environment, not health or pandemics, influenced the proportion of meat meals chosen in the experimental task.
The study suggests that the higher public support for labels warning about climate issues might be due to these considerations. This aligns with previous research indicating that public support for certain policies is linked to people’s existing beliefs about the causes of certain issues. The statement also highlights that, in the study, both climate and health warning labels were considered the most credible.
As a result, the study proposes that the introduction of pictorial warning labels related to climate change could be both effective in influencing choices and well-received by the public. This conclusion is based on the observation that such labels were not only perceived as credible but also garnered the most support among participants for being implemented as policies.
What was also interesting was how open the researchers were in manipulating people into their belief system. They didn’t want to use text based lables because it didn’t give the emotional response they wanted.
