Original Source

Effect of Climate Change Impact Menu Labels on Fast Food Ordering Choices Among US Adults

JAMA Network Open: Public Health

Volume: 5: e2248320 Issue: 12

27 DEC 2022

Wolfson, J. A., Musicus, A. A., Leung, C. W., Gearhardt, A. N. & Falbe, J.

1

Yes

From the source: "Data collection was supported by Time-sharing Experiments for the Social Sciences, principal investigators Jeremy Freese, PhD (Stanford University), and James Druckman, PhD (Northwestern University), which was supported by grant 0818839 from the National Science Foundation. Dr Wolfson was supported by grant K01DK119166 from the National Institutes of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases of the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Dr Musicus was supported by grant 2T32CA057711 from the NIH. Dr Falbe was supported by grant 1K01DK113068 from the National Institutes of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases of the NIH."

From the source: "None reported"
Posted on

Summary

Using an online survey, 5,049 American adults, representative of the US population, were shown a fast food menu with either no climate impact labeling (control), green low-climate impact labels (positive framing), or red high-climate impact labels (negative framing) on items. Compared with the control group, 23.5% more participants chose a more sustainable option (i.e., items that did not contain red meat) when presented with the red high-impact labels, and 9.9% more participants chose a more sustainable option when presented with the green low-impact climate labels. Participants presented with low-impact labels also perceived their food choices as healthier, although no option was deemed healthy by a validated nutrition quality measure. High-climate labels were also more influential for women compared to men. A strength of this study is its large representative sample. The study is limited in that it only tests a one-time hypothetical food choice rather than actual purchases. The authors argue that climate-impact labeling is a promising strategy to promote sustainable food choices.

IMPORTANCE There is increasing interest in strategies to encourage more environmentally
sustainable food choices in US restaurants through the use of menu labels that indicate an item’s
potential impact on the world’s climate. Data are lacking on the ideal design of such labels to
effectively encourage sustainable choices.
OBJECTIVE To test the effects of positive and negative climate impact menu labels on the
environmental sustainability and healthfulness of food choices compared with a control label.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS This randomized clinical trial used an online national US
survey conducted March 30 to April 13, 2022, among a nationally representative sample of adults
(aged 18 years) from the AmeriSpeak panel. Data were analyzed in June to October 2022.
INTERVENTIONS Participants were shown a fast food menu and prompted to select 1 item they
would like to order for dinner. Participants were randomized to view menus with 1 of 3 label
conditions: a quick response code label on all items (control group); green low–climate impact label
on chicken, fish, or vegetarian items (positive framing); or red high–climate impact label on red meat
items (negative framing).
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The main outcome was an indicator of selecting a sustainable
item (ie, one without red meat). Secondary outcomes included participant health perceptions of the
selected item and the Nutrition Profile Index (NPI) score of healthfulness.
RESULTS Among 5049 participants (2444 female [51.6%]; 789 aged 18-29 years [20.3%], 1532
aged 30-44 years [25.9%], 1089 aged 45-59 years [23.5%], and 1639 aged 60 years [30.4%]; 142
Asian [5.3%], 611 Black [12.1%], and 3197 White [63.3%]; 866 Hispanic [17.2%]), high– and
low–climate impact labels were effective at encouraging sustainable selections from the menu.
Compared with participants in the control group, 23.5% more participants (95% CI, 13.7%-34.0%;
P < .001) selected a sustainable menu item when menus displayed high–climate impact labels and
9.9% more participants (95% CI, 1.0%-19.8%; P = .03) selected a sustainable menu item when
menus displayed low–climate impact labels. Across experimental conditions, participants who
selected a sustainable item rated their order as healthier than those who selected an unsustainable
item, according to mean perceived healthfulness score (control label: 3.4 points; 95% CI, 3.2-3.5
points vs 2.5 points; 95% CI, 2.4-2.6 points; P < .001; low-impact label: 3.7 points; 95% CI, 3.5-3.8
points vs 2.6 points; 95% CI, 2.5-2.7 points; P < .001; high-impact label: 3.5 points; 95% CI, 3.3-3.6
points vs 2.7 points; 95% CI, 2.6-2.9 points; P < .001). Participants in the high–climate impact label
group selected healthier items according to mean (SE) NPI score (54.3 [0.2] points) compared with those in the low–climate impact (53.2 [0.2] points; P < .001) and control (52.9 [0.3] points; P < .001)
label groups.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE This randomized clinical trial’s findings suggest that climate
impact menu labels, especially negatively framed labels highlighting high–climate impact items (ie,
red meat), were an effective strategy to reduce red meat selections and encourage more
sustainable choices.
TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05482204