背景:大量食用红肉和加工肉会对健康和环境造成伤害。红肉的警告标签和税收总体上减少了红肉的选择,但对这些潜在政策如何影响红肉子类别的购买知之甚少(例如,加工与未加工)或非红肉食品(例如,奶酪,脉冲)与健康和环境结果相关。这项研究在一项随机对照试验中检查了消费者对红肉警告标签和税收的反应。
方法:2021年10月,我们招募了3,518名美国成年人在一家自然主义的在线杂货店完成购物任务。参与者被随机分配到四个武器之一:控制(没有警告标签或税收),仅警告标签(健康和环境警告标签出现在含有红肉的产品旁边),仅征税(含红肉产品的价格上涨30%)或联合警告标签+税收。参与者选择了要假设购买的物品,我们根据动物和植物来源成分的存在将其分类为食物组(例如,牛肉,鸡蛋,脉冲),肉类加工水平(例如,加工猪肉与未加工猪肉),和肉类(例如,牛肉与猪肉)。我们评估了警告标签和税收对每个食品组选择的影响。
结果:与对照组相比,所有三项干预措施均导致参与者选择较少的加工肉制品(受加工猪肉减少的驱动)和(仅针对税收和警告标签+税收干预)较少的未加工肉制品(受未加工牛肉减少的驱动).所有这三种干预措施也导致参与者选择更多含有奶酪的物品,而只有联合警告标签+税收干预导致参与者选择更多含有加工家禽的物品。除了税收部门的豆类选择增加外,干预措施不影响鱼类或海鲜(加工或未加工)的选择,鸡蛋,或植物性物品(脉冲,坚果和种子,豆腐,肉模仿,谷物和土豆,蔬菜)。
结论:减少红肉消费的政策也可能影响与健康和环境结果相关的其他类型食品的消费。
背景:www上的NCT04716010。
结果:政府。
BACKGROUND: High consumption of red and processed meat contributes to both health and environmental harms. Warning labels and
taxes for red meat reduce selection of red meat overall, but little is known about how these potential policies affect purchases of subcategories of red meat (e.g., processed versus unprocessed) or of non-red-meat foods (e.g., cheese, pulses) relevant to health and environmental outcomes. This
study examined consumer responses to warning labels and
taxes for red meat in a randomized controlled
trial.
METHODS: In October 2021, we recruited 3,518 US adults to complete a shopping task in a naturalistic online grocery store. Participants were randomly assigned to one of four arms: control (no warning labels or tax), warning labels only (health and environmental warning labels appeared next to products containing red meat), tax only (prices of products containing red meat were increased 30%) or combined warning labels + tax. Participants selected items to hypothetically purchase, which we categorized into food groups based on the presence of animal- and plant-source ingredients (e.g., beef, eggs, pulses), meat processing level (e.g., processed pork versus unprocessed pork), and meat species (e.g., beef versus pork). We assessed the effects of the warning labels and tax on selections from each food group.
RESULTS: Compared to control, all three interventions led participants to select fewer items with processed meat (driven by reductions in processed pork) and (for the tax and warning labels + tax interventions only) fewer items with unprocessed meat (driven by reductions in unprocessed beef). All three interventions also led participants to select more items containing cheese, while only the combined warning labels + tax intervention led participants to select more items containing processed poultry. Except for an increase in selection of pulses in the tax arm, the interventions did not affect selections of fish or seafood (processed or unprocessed), eggs, or plant-based items (pulses, nuts & seeds, tofu, meat mimics, grains & potatoes, vegetables).
CONCLUSIONS: Policies to reduce red meat consumption are also likely to affect consumption of other types of foods that are relevant to both health and environmental outcomes.
BACKGROUND: NCT04716010 on www.
RESULTS: gov .