{"id":15544,"date":"2023-10-06T09:29:25","date_gmt":"2023-10-06T13:29:25","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.globalfoodresearchprogram.org\/?p=15544"},"modified":"2023-10-09T13:26:15","modified_gmt":"2023-10-09T17:26:15","slug":"randomized-control-trial-shows-promise-for-policies-to-reduce-red-meat-purchases","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.globalfoodresearchprogram.org\/randomized-control-trial-shows-promise-for-policies-to-reduce-red-meat-purchases\/","title":{"rendered":"Randomized control trial shows promise for policies to reduce red meat purchases\ufffc"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\n
\n

Findings from a new study in PLOS Medicine<\/em><\/a> conducted by researchers from UNC-Chapel Hill, Stanford University, and the University of Edinburgh indicate that warning label and tax policies effectively reduce purchases of red meat-containing items, such as burger patties, pepperoni pizza, and ham luncheon meat. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Consumption of red meat has gained attention as a nutrition and environmental concern, given its link to harmful climate and health impacts, including high greenhouse gas emissions and increased risk of noncommunicable diseases. The landmark 2019 EAT-Lancet Commission<\/a> encourages consumers to decrease red meat consumption to improve health and consume a more environmentally friendly diet. Yet, there is limited research assessing how food policies could encourage this decrease in red meat consumption. Warning labels<\/a> and taxes<\/a> on processed foods and sugar-sweetened beverages have been found to effectively reduce their purchase and consumption, but this study is the first to assess the impact of warning labels and tax policies specifically on red meat-containing products.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Online shopping for red meat <\/h2>\n\n\n
\n
\"\"
The warning labels (pictured above) were designed to include both a health and environmental warning, and the tax was set at 30%.<\/figcaption><\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n

Researchers randomly assigned participants to a control group or to one of three intervention groups: warning labels, tax, or combined (warning labels + tax). A total of 3,518 participants completed an online shopping task where they were instructed to purchase items from a predetermined 9-item shopping list with a $40 budget: 1 pizza, 1 burrito, burger patties (meat or vegetarian), breakfast sausages (meat or vegetarian), 1 frozen individual meal, 1 loaf of bread, 1 sandwich filling (for example, ham, turkey, or peanut butter), 1 pack of tortillas, and 1 taco filling (for example, steak, chicken, or beans). Researchers counted the number of products that contained red meat and proportion of red meat products in the shopping haul.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

They found that warning label, tax, and a combination of both interventions all led to reductions in purchases of red meat-containing items: 39% of control group participants purchased red meat items compared to 36% of those who saw warning labels, 34% of those in the tax group, and 31% of those exposed to a combination of the two interventions.<\/p>\n\n\n

\n
\"Lindsey
Dr. Lindsey Smith Taillie<\/figcaption><\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n

Exposure to the combined intervention of warnings and the tax also resulted in less calories (-312 kcal) and saturated fat (-12.8 g) in participants’ shopping baskets, but not sodium, when compared to the control group.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cThese results show that taxes and warning labels on red meat work similarly to sugary drinks and tobacco, helping consumers reduce their purchases of these products,” said first author Lindsey Smith Taillie, PhD<\/a>, associate professor and associate chair of academics in the Department of Nutrition at UNC-Chapel Hill\u2019s Gillings Global School of Public Health. “Policies like taxes and warning labels to reduce red meat purchases could yield both public health and environmental benefits.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Key findings:<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
\n