Numerous studies and experts have long warned of the impact that the consumption of meat products has on our health and the planet. Eating a hamburger, for example, means emitting 6.7 kilos of CO₂ into the atmosphere. Likewise, consuming red or processed meat in large quantities can cause cancer, diabetes and heart disease, according to the World Health Organization (WHO), which is why it is advised to reduce its intake. To reduce meat consumption and, consequently, the carbon footprint, a new study from the University of Durham (United Kingdom) suggests that the use of warning labels similar to those for tobacco could contribute to this mission, which in turn —they indicate— it would improve public health.
The research does not in any way compare the damage that tobacco causes to our body with that caused by meat. Their analysis focuses only on graphic signs that can have a deterrent effect on the consumption of certain products, such as warnings about cancer and other diseases on cigarette packages. In the journal Appetite, where the study was published, Doctor of Psychology Jack Hughes explains that reaching net zero (that is, the emissions expelled into the atmosphere are equal to those absorbed by natural sinks such as oceans and forests) It is a "priority" for the planet.
And their proposal to address the issue of contamination from the meat industry is to incorporate a warning sign on packaging with images and texts that will warn of the damage "to the climate, health and the risk of pandemics" that consuming that product. "As these types of labels have already been shown to reduce smoking and the consumption of sugary and alcoholic drinks, the use of a similar label on meat-containing products could help us achieve the same if national policy is introduced," he adds. the expert.
To reach these conclusions, the researchers tested a series of labels that they added to certain products and found that all of them were effective in discouraging people from choosing foods with meat. All of them, which showed a graphic image next to the text, generated an impact on the consumer that led them to choose other products. The study found that with these labels the consumption of products containing meat was reduced by between 7% and 10%. Those that generated the most acceptance among participants were, however, those that included a climate warning.
A total of 1,001 adults and carnivores made up the study sample. These were divided into four groups, which were shown images of hot foods that could be purchased in stores and that contained a health, climate, pandemic warning label or none. They were asked to make 20 separate decisions about different food options, and were asked how believable and provocative they found the labels, as well as whether they generated any anxiety.
Future intentions to buy and eat those products were measured and, equally, how much support they would give to the different labels if they were launched. "It is known that eating a lot of meat, especially red and processed, is bad for health and contributes to deaths from pollution and climate change," says the study's lead author, Milica Vasiljevic. She adds: "Adding warning labels to meat products could be one way to reduce these risks."
The investigation has provoked reactions of all kinds on social networks. "Eating meat is not only NOT bad, but it is essential as part of a healthy diet," explained one user on X. "It is exaggerated to want to put danger labels like on tobacco," added another. And there are also those who defend that it is a step to reduce pollution, as well as to improve, perhaps, the well-being of animals: "On the labels, as with tobacco, they should put photos of how they live, how they take them to the slaughterhouse and how they are murdered, and warn that eating meat seriously damages health.
