Summary
Health warning messages were perceived as more effective by participants than environmental warning messages in discouraging them from eating red meat. Among the health warning messages, those that linked early death or cancer with red meat consumption elicited the most concern, while the environmental message most concerning to participants was climate change leading to extreme weather events. Belonging to a certain demographic was also a predictor of message effectiveness, such as age, sex, and race, among other things. For example, health and environmental messages were perceived as more effective by younger adults (18-25), health messages scored higher for effectiveness in women than in men, and environmental messages scored higher for Hispanic/Latinx participants. A strength of this study, as identified by authors, is its large sample size of U.S. participants and randomized experimental design. While this study did assess the most effective type of messaging to reduce meat consumption, the authors note that behavior, such as whether this messaging actually leads to reduced red meat consumption, was not tested. The authors conclude that health warning labels attached to red meat products, and which focus on the risks of early death and cancer related to red meat consumption, can be a useful tool to curb consumption of such products.
Introduction
The United States has among the highest per capita red meat consumption in the world. Reducing red meat consumption is crucial for minimizing the environmental impact of diets and improving health outcomes. Warning messages are effective for reducing purchases of products like sugary beverages but have not been developed for red meat. This study developed health and environmental warning messages about red meat and explored participants’ reactions to these messages.
Methods
A national convenience sample of US red meat consumers (n = 1,199; mean age 45 years) completed an online survey in 2020 for this exploratory study. Participants were randomized to view a series of either health or environmental warning messages (between-subjects factor) about the risks associated with eating red meat. Messages were presented in random order (within-subjects factor; 8 health messages or 10 environmental messages). Participants rated each warning message on a validated 3-item scale measuring perceived message effectiveness (PME), ranging from 1 (low) to 5 (high). Participants then rated their intentions to reduce their red meat consumption in the next 7 days.
Results
Health warning messages elicited higher PME ratings than environmental messages (mean 2.66 vs. 2.26, p<0.001). Health warning messages also led to stronger intentions to reduce red meat consumption compared to environmental messages (mean 2.45 vs. 2.19, p<0.001). Within category (health and environmental), most pairwise comparisons of harms were not statistically significant.
Conclusions
Health warning messages were perceived to be more effective than environmental warning messages. Future studies should measure the impact of these messages on behavioral outcomes.