Dataset Information

Testing front-of-package warnings to discourage red meat consumption: a randomized experiment with US meat consumers.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Reducing red meat is a strategy to improve public health and mitigate climate change in the United States and other high-income countries. Policies requiring warnings on the front of red meat packages are a promising intervention to shift consumers towards healthier and more sustainable food choices. We aimed to explore participants' reactions to health and environmental warning messages about red meat.

Methods

Between June and July 2020, we recruited a national convenience sample of US red meat consumers (n = 1,235; mean age 44 years) for an online survey. Participants were randomly assigned to one of four label conditions: no-label control, health warning, environment warning, and combined health and environment warning (both warnings shown side-by-side). Participants viewed three types of burritos (red meat [steak], chicken, and vegetarian) and selected their preferred item (primary outcome), the item they perceived to be most damaging to health, and the item they perceived to be most damaging to the environment (secondary outcomes). Participants then viewed their assigned warning on a series of other red meat products (no-label control participants were randomly re-assigned to one of the warning conditions) and rated the warnings on perceived message effectiveness, believability, negative emotions, perceived risk, attention, and learning something new. Finally, participants reported their intentions to reduce red meat consumption.

Results

There were no significant differences in selection of the steak burrito between label conditions or in selection of the item most damaging to the environment. Those exposed to the health warning were more likely to select the steak burrito as most damaging to health compared to those exposed to other label conditions (health 73 %, combined 64 %, environment 60 %, no-label control 63 %, p < 0.05). The combined and health warnings elicited higher perceived message effectiveness ratings than the environment warning (combined mean 2.91, health 2.84, environment 2.61, p < 0.05).

Conclusions

Warnings did not have a significant effect on item preference in the choice experiment. However, combined and health warnings performed better than the environment warning across a variety of warning label reaction measures. More research will be needed to understand whether warnings elicit behavioral change in real-world environments.

Trial registration

Analyses and hypotheses were preregistered on https://aspredicted.org/ph7mb.pdf on 23 June 2020.

SUBMITTER: Taillie LS

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8423585 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:indicator front-of-package nutrition labelling schemes are gaining momentum. In Europe, an example of such a scheme is Nutri-Score, which was first introduced in France. Supported by additional research, the scheme has the potential to expand into other countries. Such a scenario opens a series of questions related to the use of Nutri-Score in the territories with pre-existing food labelling schemes. A key question is whether different nutrition labelling schemes would provide conflicting information for consumers when applied to same foods. The goal of our study was, therefore, to evaluate the alignment of different front-of-package nutrition labelling schemes. The study was conducted using cross-sectional data on the composition of selected categories of prepacked foods with high penetration nutrition/health claims and symbols in the Slovenian food supply. We evaluated a variety of existing front-of-package nutrition labelling schemes: three interpretive nutrition rating systems (Nutri-Score, Health Star Rating (HSR), Traffic light system), four health symbols (Protective Food symbol, Choices, Finnish heart, and Keyhole symbol), and also three nutrient profile models developed for other purposes (Office of Communications (United Kingdom, Ofcom), World Health Organization Regional office for Europe (WHOE) and Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ)). Overall, our results indicate that interpretive nutrition rating systems (i.e., Nutri-Score) are mostly less strict than the nutrient profiles of tested health symbols. A risk of conflicting information would happen in a scenario where food is eligible to carry a health symbol, but is at the same time rated to have lower nutritional quality by an accompanying interpretive nutrition rating system. When Protective Food symbol and Nutri-Score are used together, this would occur for 5% of foods in our sample. To avoid such risks, schemes for health symbols could be adapted to be stricter than interpretive nutrition rating systems used in the same territory/market, but such adaptations are challenging and should be well planned. While our study showed that, in most cases, Nutri-Score is a less strict model than tested health symbols, the rating-system approach might offer useful support and incentive for food producers towards gradual food reformulation.

Project description:BackgroundPolicies to reduce red meat intake are important for mitigating climate change and improving public health. We tested the impact of taxes and warning labels on red meat purchases in the United States. The main study question was, will taxes and warning labels reduce red meat purchases?Methods and findingsWe recruited 3,518 US adults to participate in a shopping task in a naturalistic online grocery store from October 18, 2021 to October 28, 2021. Participants were randomized to one of 4 conditions: control (no tax or warning labels, n = 887), warning labels (health and environmental warning labels appeared next to products containing red meat, n = 891), tax (products containing red meat were subject to a 30% price increase, n = 874), or combined warning labels + tax (n = 866). We used fractional probit and Poisson regression models to assess the co-primary outcomes, percent, and count of red meat purchases, and linear regression to assess the secondary outcomes of nutrients purchased. Most participants identified as women, consumed red meat 2 or more times per week, and reported doing all of their household's grocery shopping. The warning, tax, and combined conditions led to lower percent of red meat-containing items purchased, with 39% (95% confidence interval (CI) [38%, 40%]) of control participants' purchases containing red meat, compared to 36% (95% CI [35%, 37%], p = 0.001) of warning participants, 34% (95% CI [33%, 35%], p < 0.001) of tax participants, and 31% (95% CI [30%, 32%], p < 0.001) of combined participants. A similar pattern was observed for count of red meat items. Compared to the control, the combined condition reduced calories purchased (-312.0 kcals, 95% CI [-590.3 kcals, -33.6 kcals], p = 0.027), while the tax (-10.4 g, 95% CI [-18.2 g, -2.5 g], p = 0.01) and combined (-12.8 g, 95% CI [-20.7 g, -4.9 g], p = 0.001) conditions reduced saturated fat purchases; no condition affected sodium purchases. Warning labels decreased the perceived healthfulness and environmental sustainability of red meat, while taxes increased perceived cost. The main limitations were that the study differed in sociodemographic characteristics from the US population, and only about 30% to 40% of the US population shops for groceries online.ConclusionsWarning labels and taxes reduced red meat purchases in a naturalistic online grocery store. Trial Registration: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ NCT04716010.

Project description:Background:Cardiovascular risk (CVR) underlies aging process and longevity. Previous work points to genetic and environmental factors associated with this risk. Objectives:The aim of this research is to look for any CVR gene-gene and gene-multifactorial/lifestyle interactions that may impact health and disease and underlie exceptional longevity. Methods:A case-control study involving 521 both gender individuals, 253 centenarians (100.26 ± 1.98 years), and 268 controls (67.51 ± 3.25 years), low (LCR, n = 107) and high (HCR, n = 161) CVR. Hypertension, diabetes, obesity (BMI, kg·m-2), and impaired kidney function were defined according to standard criteria. CVR was calculated using Q risk®. DNA was genotyping (ACE-rs4646994, AGT-rs4762, AGR1-rs5182, GRK4-rs2960306, GRK4-rs1024323, NOS3-rs1799983, and SLC12A3-rs13306673) through iPlex-MassARRAY®, read by MALDI-TOF mass spectrometry, and analyzed by EARTDECODE®. Results:Antilongevity factors consisted (OR 95% CI, p < 0.05) BMI 1.558 (1.445-1.680), hypertension 2.358 (1.565-3.553), smoking habits 4.528 (2.579-7.949), diabetes 5.553 (2.889-10.675), hypercholesterolemia 1.016 (1.010-1.022), and regular consumption of red meat 22.363 (13.987-35.755). Genetic aspects particularly for HCR individuals ACE II (OR: 3.96 (1.83-8.56), p < 0.0001) and NOS3 TT (OR: 3.11 (1.70-5.70), p < 0.0001) genotypes were also risk associate. Obesity, smoking, hypercholesterolemia, and frequent consumption of red meat have an additive action to hypertension in the longevity process. There was a synergistic interaction between the endothelial NOS3 genotypes and the severity of arterial hypertension. An epistatic interaction between functional genetic variants of GRK4 and angiotensinogen was also observed. Conclusions:Cardiovascular risk-related genetic and multifactorial or predominantly lifestyle aspects and its interactions might influence the aging process and contribute to exceptional longevity in Portuguese centenarians. Besides lifestyle, the activity of nitrite oxide synthase may be one of the main physiologic regulators of cardiovascular protection in the path of longevity.