Developing health and environmental warning messages about red meat: An online experiment

Taillie, Lindsey Smith; Prestemon, Carmen E.; Hall, Marissa G.; Grummon, Anna H.; Vesely, Annamaria; Jaacks, Lindsay M.

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0268121

Cited by 14 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 74 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Some studies have suggested that healthy dietary habits are more stable over time than unhealthy ones [3,40,41]; hence, parental feeding practices conducive to the development of healthy eating behaviors as a source of childhood food experiences as well as perceived nutrition concerns were included in the study as explanatory factors for changes in food intake in early adulthood and diet quality. Since a relationship between these variables was assumed, the following hypotheses were formulated: (1) Having childhood food experiences related to parents' monitoring practices and healthy eating guidance is associated with higher diet quality in early adulthood; (2) higher level of nutrition concerns is associated with higher diet quality in early adulthood; (3) having childhood food experiences related to parents' monitoring practices and healthy eating guidance is associated with more positive changes in food intake during university studies; and (4) higher level of nutrition concerns is associated with more positive changes in food intake during the studying period.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Diet Quality and Changes in Food Intake during the University Studies in Polish Female Young Adults: Linkages with Food Experiences from Childhood and Perceived Nutrition Concerns

2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The transition from adolescence to young adulthood may be associated with unfavorable changes in food intake due to some substantial transformations in social life and environment. Factors that affect food choices and diet quality during early adulthood are still not well-recognized. This paper aims to explore the relationship between females’ childhood food experiences related to parents’ monitoring practices and healthy eating guidance, perceived nutrition concerns, changes in food intake during university studies, and diet quality. A cross-sectional study with the use of CAWI (Computer-Assisted Web Interview) was carried out on 657 female students aged 19–30 years. Beliefs and Eating Habits Questionnaire (KomPAN) was used to assess the frequency of eating various kinds of food and then to calculate the diet-quality index (DQI). Adults’ Memories of Feeding in Childhood (AMoFiC) questionnaire was used to assess food experiences from childhood, and Health Concern Scale (HCS) was used to assess nutrition concerns. Associations between changes in food intake, diet quality, and selected factors describing the study sample were verified using logistic regression analysis. The DQI of the majority of students indicated a low intensity of nonhealthy and pro-healthy dietary characteristics. The intensity was higher among nutrition and health students, those with low nutrition concerns, and those with childhood experiences of monitoring. The chances of a negative change in food intake were increased by a higher score for childhood food experiences associated with parents’ monitoring practices. The chances of a negative DQI were increased by bigger concerns about nutrition and by technical and agricultural majors; however, they were reduced by positive changes in food intake. Both childhood food experiences and perceived nutrition concerns should be factored into strategies aimed at improving youth diet and educating parents about effective parental feeding practices.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Diet Quality and Changes in Food Intake during the University Studies in Polish Female Young Adults: Linkages with Food Experiences from Childhood and Perceived Nutrition Concerns

2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This study used both health and environmental warnings in the labeling policy condition, so we were unable to disentangle the effects of the 2 types of warnings. Our previous research has found that health warnings and “combined” warnings that include both health and environmental messages are perceived as more effective than warnings that include only environmental messages [ 24 , 25 ] suggesting that the health warning may have been responsible for most of the observed reductions in red meat purchases in this study. In contrast, a study in the UK found that nutrition labels (Nutriscore) did not impact the healthfulness of purchases in an online experimental store but that environmentally focused “ecolabels,” either alone or in combination with nutrition labels, improved the sustainability of purchases [ 43 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 72%

“…The warning labels were designed based on previous research on warning efficacy [ 19 , 22 ] and nutrient warning labels in effect globally [ 23 ]. We tested several health and environmental warnings for red meat [ 24 , 25 ] and selected one for each topic (health and environment) based on perceived message effectiveness, evidence for the claims, literacy, and political feasibility through consultation with nutrition and environmental scientists and public health lawyers. The tax level of 30% was determined as a tax level likely to reduce health and environmental harms [ 8 , 10 ].…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Impact of taxes and warning labels on red meat purchases among US consumers: A randomized controlled trial

Taillie,

Bercholz,

Prestemon

et al. 2023

PLoS Med

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Policies 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 findings We 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. Conclusions Warning labels and taxes reduced red meat purchases in a naturalistic online grocery store. Trial Registration: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ NCT04716010.

show abstract

“…For participants in the warning labels or combined warning labels + tax trial arms, the store displayed health and environmental warning labels next to foods containing red meat. The two labels were used simultaneously based on the results of previous research that found that presenting both health and environmental warning labels together may be more effective than presenting either alone [ 26 , 27 ]. For participants in the tax or combined warning labels + tax trial arms, the store displayed prices for foods containing red meat that were 30% higher than the control.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of red meat taxes and warning labels on food groups selected in a randomized controlled trial

Willits-Smith,

Taillie,

Jaacks

et al. 2024

Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background High consumption of red and processed meat contributes to both health and environmental harms. Warning labels and taxes for red meat reduce selection of red meat overall, but little is known about how these potential policies affect purchases of subcategories of red meat (e.g., processed versus unprocessed) or of non-red-meat foods (e.g., cheese, pulses) relevant to health and environmental outcomes. This study examined consumer responses to warning labels and taxes for red meat in a randomized controlled trial. Methods In October 2021, we recruited 3,518 US adults to complete a shopping task in a naturalistic online grocery store. Participants were randomly assigned to one of four arms: control (no warning labels or tax), warning labels only (health and environmental warning labels appeared next to products containing red meat), tax only (prices of products containing red meat were increased 30%) or combined warning labels + tax. Participants selected items to hypothetically purchase, which we categorized into food groups based on the presence of animal- and plant-source ingredients (e.g., beef, eggs, pulses), meat processing level (e.g., processed pork versus unprocessed pork), and meat species (e.g., beef versus pork). We assessed the effects of the warning labels and tax on selections from each food group. Results Compared to control, all three interventions led participants to select fewer items with processed meat (driven by reductions in processed pork) and (for the tax and warning labels + tax interventions only) fewer items with unprocessed meat (driven by reductions in unprocessed beef). All three interventions also led participants to select more items containing cheese, while only the combined warning labels + tax intervention led participants to select more items containing processed poultry. Except for an increase in selection of pulses in the tax arm, the interventions did not affect selections of fish or seafood (processed or unprocessed), eggs, or plant-based items (pulses, nuts & seeds, tofu, meat mimics, grains & potatoes, vegetables). Conclusions Policies to reduce red meat consumption are also likely to affect consumption of other types of foods that are relevant to both health and environmental outcomes. Trial registration NCT04716010 on www.clinicaltrials.gov.

show abstract

Developing health and environmental warning messages about red meat: An online experiment

Cited by 14 publications

References 74 publications

Diet Quality and Changes in Food Intake during the University Studies in Polish Female Young Adults: Linkages with Food Experiences from Childhood and Perceived Nutrition Concerns

Diet Quality and Changes in Food Intake during the University Studies in Polish Female Young Adults: Linkages with Food Experiences from Childhood and Perceived Nutrition Concerns

Impact of taxes and warning labels on red meat purchases among US consumers: A randomized controlled trial

Effects of red meat taxes and warning labels on food groups selected in a randomized controlled trial

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About