What we eat can make a difference in fighting climate change, as can the information presented about our food options, according to a paper published this week in the Journal of the American Medical Association. Researchers looked at whether fast-food ordering changes when consumers are presented with the type of labeling for environmental concerns usually reserved for health considerations. It turns out that climate menu impact labels make a difference—even more so when they’re presented in a more negative light.
More than 5,000 adults participated in a randomized clinical trial with such labels for fast food. Nearly a quarter more of participants who saw labels showing which option was the more environmentally damaging went for a more sustainable option, typically an alternative to red meat of some sort. For those who were presented with labels that provided the more sustainable option on a menu, just 10% more participants opted for that option.
Campaign Action
This translates to around 61% of participants opting for an alternative to beef who saw a menu showing which items were the most environmentally damaging, while 54% of participants in the group who saw a menu showing the most sustainable option chose an alternative to beef. Beef emits the most greenhouse gases compared with other meat options and red meat in general is seen as a more environmentally damaging option than alternatives like chicken and fish.
When reached by the Los Angeles Times, lead study author Julia Wolfson acknowledged that some folks simply may choose not to change their eating habits no matter what information they’re presented with. Still, she remains hopeful. “Building knowledge and awareness around the way our food choices do affect climate change, that is one direct action that we, as individuals, can take to mitigate climate change,” Wolfson told the paper. “It’s a salient message for some people and information that is worth amplifying.”
