New research suggests that slapping cigarette-style health warnings on meat products could help reduce global consumption levels.

But what would the implementation of such an unusual policy mean for consumers and the meat industry?

A team of researchers from Durham University in the UK recently tested the effects of displaying different warning labels on meat options. Out of 1,000 participants, the labels decreased meat purchases by up to 10 per cent.

This study comes on the back of growing evidence of the health and environmental impacts of eating large quantities of meat and animal products.

Slapping cigarette-style warning labels on food would drive down how much meat people eat, experts say. Credit: Shutterstock.

To conduct their study, the researchers surveyed 1,001 people who were asked to imagine themselves in a cafeteria. They were shown images of 20 different hot meals, including options with meat, fish, vegetarian, and vegan ingredients.

The participants were divided into four groups, with the meat options having no label or carrying labels indicating the links to 'poor health', 'climate change', or 'pandemics'.

The participants were asked to choose which meal they would prefer and to provide feedback on the labels' credibility, future purchasing intentions, and the appeal of the food items.

They were also asked to indicate their level of support for these labels if they were implemented as a policy.

The results, published in the journal Appetite, demonstrated that all labels effectively discouraged people from choosing meat-containing meals.

Labels related to health reduced the selection of meat meals by 8.8 per cent, climate labels by 7.4 per cent, and pandemic labels by 10 per cent.

However, there was no statistically significant difference between the groups, meaning all labels had a similar impact.

Participants found the climate warning labels to be the most credible, while the pandemic labels triggered the most negative emotions and were perceived as less credible.

Overall, they were relatively neutral about introducing climate warning labels on food but opposed the introduction of health and pandemic warning labels, as indicated by their responses on a seven-point scale ranging from strong opposition to strong agreement.

Health and pandemic labels received average scores of 3.5 and 3.4, respectively, while climate warning labels scored 3.88 on average.

The researchers also pointed out that eating a lot of meat is not good for your health, as studies have shown that it can increase the risk of cancer and heart disease.

They also claimed the production and consumption of meat contribute to climate change due to the significant greenhouse gas emissions associated with the meat industry.

The researchers suggested that warning labels on meat products could help mitigate these risks and contribute to achieving net-zero emissions if implemented on a national level.

Key Takeaways

• Researchers from Durham University have suggested that placing cigarette-style warning labels on meat could lead to reduced consumption.
• The study found that warnings stating the consumption of meat contributes to climate change or poor health were the most effective in persuading participants to choose non-meat alternatives.
• All labels effectively decreased the choice of meat meal options, with health-related labels reducing meat meal choices by 8.8 per cent, climate labels by 7.4 per cent and pandemic labels by 10 per cent.
• Despite the labels' success, participants were indifferent to climate warning labels and opposed the introduction of health and pandemic warning signs.

What do you think, members? Do you agree that putting warning labels on meat packaging would deter people from consuming them? How would you feel if you saw cigarette-style warning signs on meat packets? Let us know in the comments below!

 

[DKH]

What !!! another Woke scientist...

 

[MariaG]

I think attack the alcohol industry before they inflict Big Brother tactics on the normal Joe Blow's eating habits.

 

[Alanrlow]

Except there is ZERO credible peer-reviewed research demonstrating that eating a lot of meat is not good for your health.
There are ZERO credible peer-reviewed studies that have shown that it can increase the risk of cancer and heart disease.
Just more alarmist BS.

 

[DKH]

Except there is ZERO credible peer-reviewed research demonstrating that eating a lot of meat is not good for your health.
There are ZERO credible peer-reviewed studies that have shown that it can increase the risk of cancer and heart disease.
Just more alarmist BS.

 

[DKH]

Except there is ZERO credible peer-reviewed research demonstrating that eating a lot of meat is not good for your health.
There are ZERO credible peer-reviewed studies that have shown that it can increase the risk of cancer and heart disease.
Just more alarmist BS.

Good comment

 

[Staffordshire Whippet]

Wow.
The country that gave the world Mad Cow Disease is now giving us Mad Anti-Cow Disease.

 

[DKH]

Wow.
The country that gave the world Mad Cow Disease is now giving us Mad Anti-Cow Disease.

Clever reply

 

[Mojo11]

New research suggests that slapping cigarette-style health warnings on meat products could help reduce global consumption levels.

But what would the implementation of such an unusual policy mean for consumers and the meat industry?

A team of researchers from Durham University in the UK recently tested the effects of displaying different warning labels on meat options. Out of 1,000 participants, the labels decreased meat purchases by up to 10 per cent.

This study comes on the back of growing evidence of the health and environmental impacts of eating large quantities of meat and animal products.

View attachment 33734

Slapping cigarette-style warning labels on food would drive down how much meat people eat, experts say. Credit: Shutterstock.

To conduct their study, the researchers surveyed 1,001 people who were asked to imagine themselves in a cafeteria. They were shown images of 20 different hot meals, including options with meat, fish, vegetarian, and vegan ingredients.

The participants were divided into four groups, with the meat options having no label or carrying labels indicating the links to 'poor health', 'climate change', or 'pandemics'.

The participants were asked to choose which meal they would prefer and to provide feedback on the labels' credibility, future purchasing intentions, and the appeal of the food items.

They were also asked to indicate their level of support for these labels if they were implemented as a policy.

The results, published in the journal Appetite, demonstrated that all labels effectively discouraged people from choosing meat-containing meals.

Labels related to health reduced the selection of meat meals by 8.8 per cent, climate labels by 7.4 per cent, and pandemic labels by 10 per cent.

However, there was no statistically significant difference between the groups, meaning all labels had a similar impact.

Participants found the climate warning labels to be the most credible, while the pandemic labels triggered the most negative emotions and were perceived as less credible.

Overall, they were relatively neutral about introducing climate warning labels on food but opposed the introduction of health and pandemic warning labels, as indicated by their responses on a seven-point scale ranging from strong opposition to strong agreement.

Health and pandemic labels received average scores of 3.5 and 3.4, respectively, while climate warning labels scored 3.88 on average.

The researchers also pointed out that eating a lot of meat is not good for your health, as studies have shown that it can increase the risk of cancer and heart disease.

They also claimed the production and consumption of meat contribute to climate change due to the significant greenhouse gas emissions associated with the meat industry.

The researchers suggested that warning labels on meat products could help mitigate these risks and contribute to achieving net-zero emissions if implemented on a national level.

Key Takeaways

• Researchers from Durham University have suggested that placing cigarette-style warning labels on meat could lead to reduced consumption.
• The study found that warnings stating the consumption of meat contributes to climate change or poor health were the most effective in persuading participants to choose non-meat alternatives.
• All labels effectively decreased the choice of meat meal options, with health-related labels reducing meat meal choices by 8.8 per cent, climate labels by 7.4 per cent and pandemic labels by 10 per cent.
• Despite the labels' success, participants were indifferent to climate warning labels and opposed the introduction of health and pandemic warning signs.

What do you think, members? Do you agree that putting warning labels on meat packaging would deter people from consuming them? How would you feel if you saw cigarette-style warning signs on meat packets? Let us know in the comments below!

What a load of complete garbage. I had been following the recommended Western Diet for most of my life and was getting sicker by the day. This time last year I was 130kg, pre diabetic, had high blood pressure, underactive thyroid, psoriasis, sciatica, fatty liver and inflammation.
Ever since I switched to a meat only Carnivore Diet my health has improved out of sight. I am now 95Kg and all of the above conditions are gone.

 

[DKH]

What a load of complete garbage. I had been following the recommended Western Diet for most of my life and was getting sicker by the day. This time last year I was 130kg, pre diabetic, had high blood pressure, underactive thyroid, psoriasis, sciatica, fatty liver and inflammation.
Ever since I switched to a meat only Carnivore Diet my health has improved out of sight. I am now 95Kg and all of the above conditions are gone.

Excellent result for you...well done

 

[DKH]

What a load of complete garbage. I had been following the recommended Western Diet for most of my life and was getting sicker by the day. This time last year I was 130kg, pre diabetic, had high blood pressure, underactive thyroid, psoriasis, sciatica, fatty liver and inflammation.
Ever since I switched to a meat only Carnivore Diet my health has improved out of sight. I am now 95Kg and all of the above conditions are gone.

Excellent result for you...well done.

 

[BruceC]

New research suggests that slapping cigarette-style health warnings on meat products could help reduce global consumption levels.

But what would the implementation of such an unusual policy mean for consumers and the meat industry?

A team of researchers from Durham University in the UK recently tested the effects of displaying different warning labels on meat options. Out of 1,000 participants, the labels decreased meat purchases by up to 10 per cent.

This study comes on the back of growing evidence of the health and environmental impacts of eating large quantities of meat and animal products.

View attachment 33734

Slapping cigarette-style warning labels on food would drive down how much meat people eat, experts say. Credit: Shutterstock.

To conduct their study, the researchers surveyed 1,001 people who were asked to imagine themselves in a cafeteria. They were shown images of 20 different hot meals, including options with meat, fish, vegetarian, and vegan ingredients.

The participants were divided into four groups, with the meat options having no label or carrying labels indicating the links to 'poor health', 'climate change', or 'pandemics'.

The participants were asked to choose which meal they would prefer and to provide feedback on the labels' credibility, future purchasing intentions, and the appeal of the food items.

They were also asked to indicate their level of support for these labels if they were implemented as a policy.

The results, published in the journal Appetite, demonstrated that all labels effectively discouraged people from choosing meat-containing meals.

Labels related to health reduced the selection of meat meals by 8.8 per cent, climate labels by 7.4 per cent, and pandemic labels by 10 per cent.

However, there was no statistically significant difference between the groups, meaning all labels had a similar impact.

Participants found the climate warning labels to be the most credible, while the pandemic labels triggered the most negative emotions and were perceived as less credible.

Overall, they were relatively neutral about introducing climate warning labels on food but opposed the introduction of health and pandemic warning labels, as indicated by their responses on a seven-point scale ranging from strong opposition to strong agreement.

Health and pandemic labels received average scores of 3.5 and 3.4, respectively, while climate warning labels scored 3.88 on average.

The researchers also pointed out that eating a lot of meat is not good for your health, as studies have shown that it can increase the risk of cancer and heart disease.

They also claimed the production and consumption of meat contribute to climate change due to the significant greenhouse gas emissions associated with the meat industry.

The researchers suggested that warning labels on meat products could help mitigate these risks and contribute to achieving net-zero emissions if implemented on a national level.

Key Takeaways

• Researchers from Durham University have suggested that placing cigarette-style warning labels on meat could lead to reduced consumption.
• The study found that warnings stating the consumption of meat contributes to climate change or poor health were the most effective in persuading participants to choose non-meat alternatives.
• All labels effectively decreased the choice of meat meal options, with health-related labels reducing meat meal choices by 8.8 per cent, climate labels by 7.4 per cent and pandemic labels by 10 per cent.
• Despite the labels' success, participants were indifferent to climate warning labels and opposed the introduction of health and pandemic warning signs.

What do you think, members? Do you agree that putting warning labels on meat packaging would deter people from consuming them? How would you feel if you saw cigarette-style warning signs on meat packets? Let us know in the comments below!

If labels worked then nobody would be smoking these days!
Tell these clowns to stop pushing their agendas down our throats!

 

[chriseeboo]

You can see where this is going..... More bugs, anyone?
Absolutely what one would expect from a mob of Woke fools.

 

[Muzwa52]

New research suggests that slapping cigarette-style health warnings on meat products could help reduce global consumption levels.

But what would the implementation of such an unusual policy mean for consumers and the meat industry?

A team of researchers from Durham University in the UK recently tested the effects of displaying different warning labels on meat options. Out of 1,000 participants, the labels decreased meat purchases by up to 10 per cent.

This study comes on the back of growing evidence of the health and environmental impacts of eating large quantities of meat and animal products.

View attachment 33734

Slapping cigarette-style warning labels on food would drive down how much meat people eat, experts say. Credit: Shutterstock.

To conduct their study, the researchers surveyed 1,001 people who were asked to imagine themselves in a cafeteria. They were shown images of 20 different hot meals, including options with meat, fish, vegetarian, and vegan ingredients.

The participants were divided into four groups, with the meat options having no label or carrying labels indicating the links to 'poor health', 'climate change', or 'pandemics'.

The participants were asked to choose which meal they would prefer and to provide feedback on the labels' credibility, future purchasing intentions, and the appeal of the food items.

They were also asked to indicate their level of support for these labels if they were implemented as a policy.

The results, published in the journal Appetite, demonstrated that all labels effectively discouraged people from choosing meat-containing meals.

Labels related to health reduced the selection of meat meals by 8.8 per cent, climate labels by 7.4 per cent, and pandemic labels by 10 per cent.

However, there was no statistically significant difference between the groups, meaning all labels had a similar impact.

Participants found the climate warning labels to be the most credible, while the pandemic labels triggered the most negative emotions and were perceived as less credible.

Overall, they were relatively neutral about introducing climate warning labels on food but opposed the introduction of health and pandemic warning labels, as indicated by their responses on a seven-point scale ranging from strong opposition to strong agreement.

Health and pandemic labels received average scores of 3.5 and 3.4, respectively, while climate warning labels scored 3.88 on average.

The researchers also pointed out that eating a lot of meat is not good for your health, as studies have shown that it can increase the risk of cancer and heart disease.

They also claimed the production and consumption of meat contribute to climate change due to the significant greenhouse gas emissions associated with the meat industry.

The researchers suggested that warning labels on meat products could help mitigate these risks and contribute to achieving net-zero emissions if implemented on a national level.

Key Takeaways

• Researchers from Durham University have suggested that placing cigarette-style warning labels on meat could lead to reduced consumption.
• The study found that warnings stating the consumption of meat contributes to climate change or poor health were the most effective in persuading participants to choose non-meat alternatives.
• All labels effectively decreased the choice of meat meal options, with health-related labels reducing meat meal choices by 8.8 per cent, climate labels by 7.4 per cent and pandemic labels by 10 per cent.
• Despite the labels' success, participants were indifferent to climate warning labels and opposed the introduction of health and pandemic warning signs.

What do you think, members? Do you agree that putting warning labels on meat packaging would deter people from consuming them? How would you feel if you saw cigarette-style warning signs on meat packets? Let us know in the comments below!

 

[Lizzie1149]

New research suggests that slapping cigarette-style health warnings on meat products could help reduce global consumption levels.

But what would the implementation of such an unusual policy mean for consumers and the meat industry?

A team of researchers from Durham University in the UK recently tested the effects of displaying different warning labels on meat options. Out of 1,000 participants, the labels decreased meat purchases by up to 10 per cent.

This study comes on the back of growing evidence of the health and environmental impacts of eating large quantities of meat and animal products.

View attachment 33734

Slapping cigarette-style warning labels on food would drive down how much meat people eat, experts say. Credit: Shutterstock.

To conduct their study, the researchers surveyed 1,001 people who were asked to imagine themselves in a cafeteria. They were shown images of 20 different hot meals, including options with meat, fish, vegetarian, and vegan ingredients.

The participants were divided into four groups, with the meat options having no label or carrying labels indicating the links to 'poor health', 'climate change', or 'pandemics'.

The participants were asked to choose which meal they would prefer and to provide feedback on the labels' credibility, future purchasing intentions, and the appeal of the food items.

They were also asked to indicate their level of support for these labels if they were implemented as a policy.

The results, published in the journal Appetite, demonstrated that all labels effectively discouraged people from choosing meat-containing meals.

Labels related to health reduced the selection of meat meals by 8.8 per cent, climate labels by 7.4 per cent, and pandemic labels by 10 per cent.

However, there was no statistically significant difference between the groups, meaning all labels had a similar impact.

Participants found the climate warning labels to be the most credible, while the pandemic labels triggered the most negative emotions and were perceived as less credible.

Overall, they were relatively neutral about introducing climate warning labels on food but opposed the introduction of health and pandemic warning labels, as indicated by their responses on a seven-point scale ranging from strong opposition to strong agreement.

Health and pandemic labels received average scores of 3.5 and 3.4, respectively, while climate warning labels scored 3.88 on average.

The researchers also pointed out that eating a lot of meat is not good for your health, as studies have shown that it can increase the risk of cancer and heart disease.

They also claimed the production and consumption of meat contribute to climate change due to the significant greenhouse gas emissions associated with the meat industry.

The researchers suggested that warning labels on meat products could help mitigate these risks and contribute to achieving net-zero emissions if implemented on a national level.

Key Takeaways

• Researchers from Durham University have suggested that placing cigarette-style warning labels on meat could lead to reduced consumption.
• The study found that warnings stating the consumption of meat contributes to climate change or poor health were the most effective in persuading participants to choose non-meat alternatives.
• All labels effectively decreased the choice of meat meal options, with health-related labels reducing meat meal choices by 8.8 per cent, climate labels by 7.4 per cent and pandemic labels by 10 per cent.
• Despite the labels' success, participants were indifferent to climate warning labels and opposed the introduction of health and pandemic warning signs.

What do you think, members? Do you agree that putting warning labels on meat packaging would deter people from consuming them? How would you feel if you saw cigarette-style warning signs on meat packets? Let us know in the comments below!

Oh they are feeding us so much rot. I've been eating meat for years. I got all my health issues from the sugar not the meat. I eat a bit of other stuff but mostly meat and will probably go all out carnivore from the new year. Meat is also not the cause of climate change. The climate is aways changing, it was hotter when the Co2 levels were lower in past millennia. We always say it's the how not the cow. Cattle and other animals doing grazing in areas where you can't grow plants foods and feeding them the stalks and leaves that are not used is the best way. Regenerative farming keeps the moisture in the soil so keeps it cool. None of the rich are stopping flying around the world in their gas guzzling jets, none of them are stopping driving cars and we all know the issues around EVs. Waste of time and money. I've lived long enough to know that it won't work and our generation was the one that did more recycling than they do now.

 

[Muzwa52]

What a load of complete garbage. I had been following the recommended Western Diet for most of my life and was getting sicker by the day. This time last year I was 130kg, pre diabetic, had high blood pressure, underactive thyroid, psoriasis, sciatica, fatty liver and inflammation.
Ever since I switched to a meat only Carnivore Diet my health has improved out of sight. I am now 95Kg and all of the above conditions are gone.

This is because the human body was designed to process a carnivore diet. I was 120kgs and suffering much the same conditions as you until I discovered the Paleo lifestyle. I lost 33kgs in 8 months and have never felt better.

 

[Lizzie1149]

This is because the human body was designed to process a carnivore diet. I was 120kgs and suffering much the same conditions as you until I discovered the Paleo lifestyle. I lost 33kgs in 8 months and have never felt better.

yes carnivore is the best. You eat less and your body heals. Mine is still a work in progress but I'm older. Our gut not meant to process plant stuff. That's why when we eat this rubbish we end up looking like sick gorillas. Big belly and diabetes and whatever else the junk food producers hope we get wrong with us so we also support the pharmaceutical industry. I suspect many families are not making ends meet because they don't eat much meat and the kids are constantly hungry

 

[GrantHand]

New research suggests that slapping cigarette-style health warnings on meat products could help reduce global consumption levels.

But what would the implementation of such an unusual policy mean for consumers and the meat industry?

A team of researchers from Durham University in the UK recently tested the effects of displaying different warning labels on meat options. Out of 1,000 participants, the labels decreased meat purchases by up to 10 per cent.

This study comes on the back of growing evidence of the health and environmental impacts of eating large quantities of meat and animal products.

View attachment 33734

Slapping cigarette-style warning labels on food would drive down how much meat people eat, experts say. Credit: Shutterstock.

To conduct their study, the researchers surveyed 1,001 people who were asked to imagine themselves in a cafeteria. They were shown images of 20 different hot meals, including options with meat, fish, vegetarian, and vegan ingredients.

The participants were divided into four groups, with the meat options having no label or carrying labels indicating the links to 'poor health', 'climate change', or 'pandemics'.

The participants were asked to choose which meal they would prefer and to provide feedback on the labels' credibility, future purchasing intentions, and the appeal of the food items.

They were also asked to indicate their level of support for these labels if they were implemented as a policy.

The results, published in the journal Appetite, demonstrated that all labels effectively discouraged people from choosing meat-containing meals.

Labels related to health reduced the selection of meat meals by 8.8 per cent, climate labels by 7.4 per cent, and pandemic labels by 10 per cent.

However, there was no statistically significant difference between the groups, meaning all labels had a similar impact.

Participants found the climate warning labels to be the most credible, while the pandemic labels triggered the most negative emotions and were perceived as less credible.

Overall, they were relatively neutral about introducing climate warning labels on food but opposed the introduction of health and pandemic warning labels, as indicated by their responses on a seven-point scale ranging from strong opposition to strong agreement.

Health and pandemic labels received average scores of 3.5 and 3.4, respectively, while climate warning labels scored 3.88 on average.

The researchers also pointed out that eating a lot of meat is not good for your health, as studies have shown that it can increase the risk of cancer and heart disease.

They also claimed the production and consumption of meat contribute to climate change due to the significant greenhouse gas emissions associated with the meat industry.

The researchers suggested that warning labels on meat products could help mitigate these risks and contribute to achieving net-zero emissions if implemented on a national level.

Key Takeaways

• Researchers from Durham University have suggested that placing cigarette-style warning labels on meat could lead to reduced consumption.
• The study found that warnings stating the consumption of meat contributes to climate change or poor health were the most effective in persuading participants to choose non-meat alternatives.
• All labels effectively decreased the choice of meat meal options, with health-related labels reducing meat meal choices by 8.8 per cent, climate labels by 7.4 per cent and pandemic labels by 10 per cent.
• Despite the labels' success, participants were indifferent to climate warning labels and opposed the introduction of health and pandemic warning signs.

What do you think, members? Do you agree that putting warning labels on meat packaging would deter people from consuming them? How would you feel if you saw cigarette-style warning signs on meat packets? Let us know in the comments below!

Stupid people not in touch with reality

 

[Countryjohn]

New research suggests that slapping cigarette-style health warnings on meat products could help reduce global consumption levels.

But what would the implementation of such an unusual policy mean for consumers and the meat industry?

A team of researchers from Durham University in the UK recently tested the effects of displaying different warning labels on meat options. Out of 1,000 participants, the labels decreased meat purchases by up to 10 per cent.

This study comes on the back of growing evidence of the health and environmental impacts of eating large quantities of meat and animal products.

View attachment 33734

Slapping cigarette-style warning labels on food would drive down how much meat people eat, experts say. Credit: Shutterstock.

To conduct their study, the researchers surveyed 1,001 people who were asked to imagine themselves in a cafeteria. They were shown images of 20 different hot meals, including options with meat, fish, vegetarian, and vegan ingredients.

The participants were divided into four groups, with the meat options having no label or carrying labels indicating the links to 'poor health', 'climate change', or 'pandemics'.

The participants were asked to choose which meal they would prefer and to provide feedback on the labels' credibility, future purchasing intentions, and the appeal of the food items.

They were also asked to indicate their level of support for these labels if they were implemented as a policy.

The results, published in the journal Appetite, demonstrated that all labels effectively discouraged people from choosing meat-containing meals.

Labels related to health reduced the selection of meat meals by 8.8 per cent, climate labels by 7.4 per cent, and pandemic labels by 10 per cent.

However, there was no statistically significant difference between the groups, meaning all labels had a similar impact.

Participants found the climate warning labels to be the most credible, while the pandemic labels triggered the most negative emotions and were perceived as less credible.

Overall, they were relatively neutral about introducing climate warning labels on food but opposed the introduction of health and pandemic warning labels, as indicated by their responses on a seven-point scale ranging from strong opposition to strong agreement.

Health and pandemic labels received average scores of 3.5 and 3.4, respectively, while climate warning labels scored 3.88 on average.

The researchers also pointed out that eating a lot of meat is not good for your health, as studies have shown that it can increase the risk of cancer and heart disease.

They also claimed the production and consumption of meat contribute to climate change due to the significant greenhouse gas emissions associated with the meat industry.

The researchers suggested that warning labels on meat products could help mitigate these risks and contribute to achieving net-zero emissions if implemented on a national level.

Key Takeaways

• Researchers from Durham University have suggested that placing cigarette-style warning labels on meat could lead to reduced consumption.
• The study found that warnings stating the consumption of meat contributes to climate change or poor health were the most effective in persuading participants to choose non-meat alternatives.
• All labels effectively decreased the choice of meat meal options, with health-related labels reducing meat meal choices by 8.8 per cent, climate labels by 7.4 per cent and pandemic labels by 10 per cent.
• Despite the labels' success, participants were indifferent to climate warning labels and opposed the introduction of health and pandemic warning signs.

What do you think, members? Do you agree that putting warning labels on meat packaging would deter people from consuming them? How would you feel if you saw cigarette-style warning signs on meat packets? Let us know in the comments below!

Years ago red meat was good for us. Now a cows fat is destroying the atmosphere. If that was the case the air would be smelling of farts by now.
Put a warning label on red meat but I for one will continue to eat it. No vegetarian or vegan for this carnivore!!!

 

[kevinwoodtufftyke52@gmail]

New research suggests that slapping cigarette-style health warnings on meat products could help reduce global consumption levels.

But what would the implementation of such an unusual policy mean for consumers and the meat industry?

A team of researchers from Durham University in the UK recently tested the effects of displaying different warning labels on meat options. Out of 1,000 participants, the labels decreased meat purchases by up to 10 per cent.

This study comes on the back of growing evidence of the health and environmental impacts of eating large quantities of meat and animal products.

View attachment 33734

Slapping cigarette-style warning labels on food would drive down how much meat people eat, experts say. Credit: Shutterstock.

To conduct their study, the researchers surveyed 1,001 people who were asked to imagine themselves in a cafeteria. They were shown images of 20 different hot meals, including options with meat, fish, vegetarian, and vegan ingredients.

The participants were divided into four groups, with the meat options having no label or carrying labels indicating the links to 'poor health', 'climate change', or 'pandemics'.

The participants were asked to choose which meal they would prefer and to provide feedback on the labels' credibility, future purchasing intentions, and the appeal of the food items.

They were also asked to indicate their level of support for these labels if they were implemented as a policy.

The results, published in the journal Appetite, demonstrated that all labels effectively discouraged people from choosing meat-containing meals.

Labels related to health reduced the selection of meat meals by 8.8 per cent, climate labels by 7.4 per cent, and pandemic labels by 10 per cent.

However, there was no statistically significant difference between the groups, meaning all labels had a similar impact.

Participants found the climate warning labels to be the most credible, while the pandemic labels triggered the most negative emotions and were perceived as less credible.

Overall, they were relatively neutral about introducing climate warning labels on food but opposed the introduction of health and pandemic warning labels, as indicated by their responses on a seven-point scale ranging from strong opposition to strong agreement.

Health and pandemic labels received average scores of 3.5 and 3.4, respectively, while climate warning labels scored 3.88 on average.

The researchers also pointed out that eating a lot of meat is not good for your health, as studies have shown that it can increase the risk of cancer and heart disease.

They also claimed the production and consumption of meat contribute to climate change due to the significant greenhouse gas emissions associated with the meat industry.

The researchers suggested that warning labels on meat products could help mitigate these risks and contribute to achieving net-zero emissions if implemented on a national level.

Key Takeaways

• Researchers from Durham University have suggested that placing cigarette-style warning labels on meat could lead to reduced consumption.
• The study found that warnings stating the consumption of meat contributes to climate change or poor health were the most effective in persuading participants to choose non-meat alternatives.
• All labels effectively decreased the choice of meat meal options, with health-related labels reducing meat meal choices by 8.8 per cent, climate labels by 7.4 per cent and pandemic labels by 10 per cent.
• Despite the labels' success, participants were indifferent to climate warning labels and opposed the introduction of health and pandemic warning signs.

What do you think, members? Do you agree that putting warning labels on meat packaging would deter people from consuming them? How would you feel if you saw cigarette-style warning signs on meat packets? Let us know in the comments below!

We need warning labels on these " experts " doing research only to keep their jobs. Mankind have been eating meat since the beginning of mankind!