Discouraging Red Meat Consumption Through Environmental Messaging
In the past, messages used to convince people to change their dietary habits (e.g., to reduce alcohol or sugar) have emphasized the health benefits of diet change. However, messages focusing on the environmental impacts of certain food habits may be increasingly effective as concern for our planet grows. This is especially the case for red meat consumption, which has been shown to contribute to deforestation, water use, and other environmental harms.
In this study, researchers tested the effectiveness of two types of environmental messages in discouraging red meat consumption. The first type, Frame 1, emphasized the negative consequences of buying beef while Frame 2 emphasized the positive consequences of buying less beef. For example, “buying beef can hurt the environment” fits into Frame 1, and “buying less beef can help the environment” fits into Frame 2.
There were seven statements under each frame. Each statement referenced worsening or reducing a different environmental threat: deforestation, climate change, water shortages, biodiversity loss, carbon footprint, greenhouse gas emissions, or the environment in general. Through an online survey, 1,078 adults were exposed to either Frame 1 or Frame 2 statements and asked how much each statement discouraged them from wanting to buy beef.
The authors found that Frame 1’s emphasis on negative consequences (e.g., telling someone that buying beef will worsen climate change) was slightly more persuasive than Frame 2’s emphasis on positive consequences (e.g., telling someone that buying less beef will reduce climate change) across all seven topics. However, the difference was not significant. The authors take this to mean that multiple messaging strategies may be effective for reducing meat consumption.
With the exception of the “general environment” frame (which was significantly more persuasive than all other threats except GHG emissions), none of the other environmental threats stood out as more persuasive than the others. Furthermore, telling people that buying beef can hurt the environment was significantly more effective than telling them that buying less beef can help the environment. These findings indicate that focusing on more general terms like “the environment” in public messages may be more persuasive, especially for people who are not familiar with specific harms.
Messages were rated as more persuasive among participants who were Latino, less than 30 years old, ate beef once a week or less, and had a college or advanced degree. The authors were especially interested in Latino participants, as they note that this demographic consumes the most unprocessed red meat compared to other ethnic groups. Previous research has found that Latinos, compared to non-Latinos, are more likely to view climate change as a human-generated issue that affects them directly. The authors believe this may explain why they were more convinced by environmental messages.
The survey relied on a convenience sample, and the authors were not able to study participants’ emotional responses to the messages, environmental awareness, and other information that may have put the results into context. Nevertheless, the results indicate that implementing different messaging strategies for different demographics may best discourage red meat consumption. For example, emphasizing the environmental harms of eating red meat may be most effective in persuading young people, those with higher education, or Latino audiences. However, more research is needed to get a fuller understanding of why people find certain messages more effective than others, and how this varies by demographic.
https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/5/2919