Scientists say gruesome cigarette-style warnings on MEAT could be used to shame buyers

We are all accustomed to the horrific images of black lungs and rotting teeth on cigarette packs, intended to deter smokers from the unhealthy habit.

Contents

What could the ‘shaming’ labels read? Time to reduce your meat intake? Diners opt for more sustainable meals when eco-labels are on the menu, research shows

Now scientists say putting similar stickers on packs of meat in supermarkets could help shame shoppers.

The stickers may include sad images of animals accompanied by messages such as, “Animals suffer when you eat meat.” They may also include images of decimated forests with the words, “The Amazon rainforest will be destroyed if you eat meat.”

A study by Delft University of Technology in the Netherlands found that consumers were less likely to buy products with the labels.

“Meat-shaming messages elicit shame, but so do other negative emotions that translate into reduced purchase intentions,” the authors wrote.

Scientists want to put cigarette-style stickers on packs of meat in supermarkets to shame buyers

The stickers can include sad images of animals accompanied by messages such as “animals suffer if you eat meat,” or images of decimated forests that read “the Amazon rainforest will be destroyed if you eat meat.”

‘Our analysis shows that putting a sticker on a meat package, warning potential customers of the negative consequences of their purchase, can be an effective way to influence buyer behaviour.’

For their study, published in magazine Elsevier Food quality and preferenceresearchers wanted to see if a “confrontational approach” would have any impact on meat buying behavior.

What could the ‘shaming’ labels read?

The researchers give examples of three labels they believe should be added to meat packages:

By eating meat, you are destroying the Amazon rainforest!
By eating meat, you make animals suffer!
By eating meat, you increase the risk of cardiovascular disease!

They conducted three experiments with “meat-shaming messages” to try to get consumers to “experience negative emotions and eventually change their behavior.”

The first experiment involved showing 161 volunteers one of two images of a package of chicken breasts, one of which had a warning sticker on it.

This sticker featured a picture of two battery chickens behind cage bars, accompanied by the message “eating meat makes animals suffer.”

Participants were then asked how likely they would be to buy the product, their emotional response, whether it would affect their future buying behavior and how often they ate meat.

The results showed that the warning label made consumers less inclined to buy the chicken breasts, even motivating them to eat less meat in the future.

In the second study, 483 volunteers were again shown packs of meat with one of six different meat-shaming labels.

Again, each had an image and message – two related to animal welfare, two related to environmental damage and two to health.

One of each was accompanied by a ‘personal’ message – for example: ‘By eating meat, you are destroying the Amazon rainforest!’ – while the other had an ‘informative’ one – such as ‘Eating meat is destroying the Amazon rainforest!’.

They were then questioned about their reactions to the labels and their eating habits, just as in the first study.

The warning label made consumers less inclined to buy the chicken breasts, even motivating them to eat less meat in the future

The researchers say consumers are “often reluctant to reduce their meat consumption” despite the negative aspects of the industry

Time to reduce your meat intake?

Battery cage hens have a lifespan of only 35 days and most of that can be spent in a cramped cage, on top of the bodies of their dead coop mates.

While many opt for outdoor-raised options, a legal loophole was found last year that allowed chickens that lived indoors all their lives to be sold as free-range.

Videos have also surfaced of farm workers beating, kicking and swinging distressed young calves before killing them for their beef.

Eating meat and dairy products can also harm the environment, leading many people to opt for a vegetarian or vegan diet, even Monday through Friday.

By some estimates, livestock farming contributes 14.5 percent of man-made global greenhouse gas emissions.

Cows, pigs and other farm animals emit massive amounts of methane – a greenhouse gas – into the atmosphere.

Raising livestock also means converting forests into farmland, which means cutting down CO2-absorbing trees, further contributing to climate change.

More trees are being felled to make land suitable for growing crops, as about a third of all grain produced in the world is used to feed animals kept for human consumption.

Despite these negative aspects of the industry, the researchers say consumers are “often reluctant to reduce their meat consumption.”

The researchers found that the degree to which a consumer was discouraged from purchasing meat as a result of the label was not affected by the type of impacts pointed out, whether environmental, animal welfare or health.

Whether the message was worded in a personal or informative way also had no other influence on the participants.

However, the health-related message provoked fewer emotional responses than the other two, causing them both to experience “more guilt than shame.”

According to the researchers, this could be because the consequences for animal welfare and the environment are ‘concrete and easily conceivable’, while those for their health are ‘rather abstract and long-term’.

For the latest study, the team wanted to examine whether the source of a warning message and perceived credibility influenced consumer habits.

They showed 563 participants one of the six labels and told them they were made by the United Nations, Greenpeace or private nutritionist Green Eatz.

The results showed that the source made no difference to the effectiveness of a warning label.

However, if a consumer viewed the source as reliable, they were more likely to consider changing their purchasing behavior.

Oddly enough, consumers were also more likely to buy a product from an organization they considered trustworthy, regardless of the negative message.

The authors wrote: ‘This could be explained by consumers simply using the logo of an organization they consider trustworthy as a peripheral signal, without properly processing the content of the message.

“The organization’s label may inadvertently have a halo effect, acting as an endorsement rather than a warning.”

They concluded that emotional warning messages about the negative effects of eating meat on animal welfare and the environment can dissuade consumers from purchasing meat products, regardless of how it is framed or who it comes from.

We are all used to the horrific images of black lungs and rotting teeth on cigarette packs, designed to wean smokers off the unhealthy habit

Would you change your order if you knew it had an impact on the environment?

A study found that most people would, as giving options on a menu ‘eco-labels’ caused diners to choose a more sustainable meal.

Researchers at the University of Bristol asked survey participants whether they would order a burrito with a beef, chicken or vegetarian filling.

Each burrito was accompanied by a traffic light-style sustainability ranking, with the vegetarian option green for the most sustainable.

They found that 5 percent more of the participants went vegetarian when the eco-labels were added, while 17 percent more went vegetarian or chicken—the second most sustainable option.

The authors wrote: ‘The label was particularly effective with those who were motivated to act sustainably.’