Would you buy a burger if it looked like this? Researchers propose putting ... trends now
Slapping cigarette-style warning labels on food would drive down how much meat people eat, experts say.
Durham University academics tested similar alerts on 1,000 people and found they persuaded up to a tenth of participants to choose a fish or veggie option instead.
Warnings that eating meat 'contributes to climate change' or 'poor health' were the most effective messages, results showed.
Telling consumers that meat-eating can potentially trigger pandemics was judged to be the least credible of three options tried, despite having a similar effect.
The researchers said eating lots of meat is 'bad' for health, with studies showing too much can raise the risk of cancer and heart disease.
Scientists have also claimed meat production and consumption is fuelling climate change due to the industry emitting a large amount of greenhouse gas.
Durham University academics tested similar alerts on 1,000 people and found they persuaded up to a tenth of participants to choose a fish or veggie option instead. Warnings that eating meat 'contributes to climate change' or 'poor health' (right) were the most effective messages, results showed
They were shown pictures 20 different hot meals, such as burgers, pasta bakes or pizzas, each of which was available in meat, fish, vegetarian and vegan form. Volunteers were split into four groups, with the meat option either carrying no label or one stating that eating meat contributes to 'poor health', 'climate change' (pictured) or 'pandemics'
Warning labels could 'reduce these risks' and help the UK 'reach net zero' if introduced nationally, they claimed.
The researchers recruited a representative sample of 1,001 people, who were asked to imagine being in a cafeteria.
They were shown pictures 20 different hot meals, such as burgers, pasta bakes or pizzas, each of which was available in meat, fish, vegetarian and vegan form.
Volunteers were split into four groups, with the meat option either carrying no label or one stating that eating meat contributes to 'poor health', 'climate change' or 'pandemics'.
Volunteers were asked to pick which meal they would opt for.
They also reported how anxiety-provoking and believable they found the labels, whether they would buy the meals in the future and how appealing the foods were.
Participants also indicated how supportive they would be of the different labels if they were implemented as policy.
Results, published in the journal Appetite, show that all labels were effective at
