Meat with a Warning: Climate Labels Can Change What We Eat

What unsustainable behaviour needs to change:

For many consumers, choosing meat isn’t a conscious decision—it’s a default. Meat often anchors the meal, reinforced by social norms, tradition, and routine. This habitual consumption pattern persists despite growing awareness of its environmental and health impacts. Livestock farming alone accounts for nearly 15% of global greenhouse gas emissions, while high meat intake is linked to obesity, heart disease, and certain cancers. Yet, when faced with a menu or supermarket shelf, many people instinctively reach for meat-based options.

This automatic behaviour limits the uptake of more sustainable alternatives and underscores the need for subtle interventions that interrupt the “meat-as-default” mindset and open the door to more conscious choices.

The Green Nudge:

Researchers from Durham University tested a subtle but powerful intervention: visual warning labels on meat-based meals, inspired by those used on cigarette packaging. These graphic labels, which highlighted health, climate, or pandemic risks, aimed to trigger emotional reactions and disrupt automatic, habitual choices—especially in fast-paced environments like canteens or online menus.

The researchers suggest that these warning labels work by making the hidden consequences of meat consumption—such as its contribution to climate change—visible. The imagery also evokes a negative emotional response, which can automatically shift attention and preferences away from the labelled product.

The results: In a large online study with over 1,000 UK meat eaters, published in Appetite (2023), the labels reduced meat meal selections by 7.4–10% compared to a no-label control group. Climate-focused warnings performed best overall: they effectively decreased meat choices while being met with neutral public reactions—unlike pandemic or health warnings, which were more emotionally intense but less credible and more divisive. This makes climate warnings a particularly promising tool for encouraging sustainable eating without provoking resistance.

It would be valuable to test these labels in physical retail environments as well—such as on product packaging in supermarkets—where real-world shopping habits and brand cues come into play. Such trials could reveal how warning labels function in more complex, high-stakes decision contexts.

Have you come across other nudges that make climate impacts more visible at the point of sale? Let us know: hello@green-nudges.com

From Mario Weick, Milica Vasiljevic, and Jack Hughes from Durham University. The team explores how behavioural interventions can steer everyday decisions—like meal choices—towards greater sustainability. Their 2023 study, “Impact of pictorial warning labels on meat meal selection”, published in Appetite, provides new evidence on how visual cues can disrupt default behaviours and promote lower-impact food choices.