Impact of pictorial warning labels on meat meal selection: A randomised experimental study with UK meat consumers

Meat consumption has been linked to adverse health consequences, worsening climate change, and the risk of pandemics. Meat is however a popular food product and dissuading people from consuming meat has proven difficult. Outside the realm of meat consumption, previous research has shown that pictorial warning labels are effective at curbing tobacco smoking and reducing the consumption of sugary drinks and alcohol. The present research extends this work to hypothetical meat meal selection, using an online decision-making task to test whether people's meal choices can be influenced by pictorial warning labels focused on the health, climate, or pandemic risks associated with consuming meat. Setting quotas for age and gender to approximate a UK nationally representative sample, a total of n = 1001 adult meat consumers (aged 18+) were randomised into one of four experimental groups: health pictorial warning label, climate pictorial warning label, pandemic pictorial warning label, or control (no warning label present). All warning labels reduced the proportion of meat meals selected significantly compared to the control group, with reductions ranging from -7.4% to -10%. There were no statistically significant differences in meat meal selection between the different types of warning labels. We discuss implications for future research, policy, and practice.