Whenever you’re deciding what to eat for lunch or dinner, do you think about the meal’s greenhouse fuel emissions? How do you examine the carbon footprint of a beef sandwich with that of a falafel wrap?
Most individuals can’t inform what’s higher for the local weather. Even those that care deeply about making sustainable meals decisions can wrestle.
In Australia, meat merchandise are accountable for almost half (49%) the greenhouse gas emissions of merchandise consumed at residence. Switching from these high-emission meals to lower-emission meals, resembling plant-based meals, can considerably scale back family emissions. However a lack of understanding could also be stopping folks doing the appropriate factor.
The excellent news is my colleagues and I’ve a easy answer. Highlighting the supply of the meals as animal- or plant-based on carbon labels makes an enormous distinction to shopper decisions. In our latest research, we present this new carbon label encourages switching from animal-based to plant-based meals.
Closing the data hole
Earlier analysis has proven consumers consistently underestimate the huge distinction in greenhouse fuel emissions between animal- and plant-based meals. For example, producing one kilogram of beef emits 60kg of greenhouse gases, whereas producing the same amount of peas emits simply 1kg of greenhouse gases. Nevertheless, most individuals suppose the hole between the 2 is far smaller.
This issues as a result of collectively, our meals decisions have a huge impact on local weather change. Agriculture generates virtually a third of global greenhouse gas emissions, with animal merchandise the most important contributors.
Making carbon labels extra informative
A “carbon footprint” refers back to the greenhouse fuel emissions related to a product.
Globally, there may be increasing interest in carbon food labelling, given its potential to nudge customers in direction of extra sustainable meals decisions. In Australia, such labelling is voluntary and never but widespread.
Most carbon labels comply with an identical method. They typically display a quantity representing greenhouse fuel emissions, and a traffic-light system indicating the extent of environmental influence from inexperienced (low) to purple (excessive). However such labels don’t point out whether or not the meals is animal- or plant-based. So a excessive carbon rating doesn’t assist folks determine the supply of the emissions.
Romain Cadario, Yi Li, Anne-Kathrin Klesse, (2025) Appetite., CC BY
We designed a brand new sort of label. It clearly shows whether or not the meals is sourced primarily from animals or crops, together with the usual emissions rating and traffic-light color code. This method is particularly helpful for the growing segment of pre-prepared and packaged foods resembling soups and different ready-to-eat meals, which regularly comprise a mixture of meat and plant-based meals.
Our label creates a psychological hyperlink between a meals supply and its carbon impact. When a shopper sees excessive carbon scores and purple visitors lights showing extra ceaselessly on meat and different animal merchandise, they start to make the connection between these merchandise and better emissions. That is key to addressing a lack of understanding round meals carbon emissions.
We examined our label towards the present labels in a collection of experiments with 1,817 on a regular basis customers from Australia, the US and the Netherlands.
One experiment concerned soup. In contrast with the group uncovered to the usual carbon label, the group uncovered to our label realized to affiliate animal-based soups with larger greenhouse fuel emissions extra successfully. They have been extra correct at estimating the greenhouse fuel emissions of a second batch of soups with out labels.
This improved data additionally interprets to extra climate-friendly meals decisions. In one other experiment with Australian customers, we inspired individuals to decide on 5 meals from ten choices. 5 have been animal-based and 5 have been plant-based.
Half the individuals noticed the meal choices with our carbon labels, and the opposite half didn’t see the carbon labels. The group uncovered to our carbon labels selected fewer animal-based choices of their weekly meal plan. On this case, we don’t know whether or not a 3rd group uncovered to the usual label would additionally make extra climate-friendly decisions, however our earlier experiments instructed our label was simpler.
Within the closing experiment performed within the Netherlands, displaying our carbon label made college college students extra doubtless to decide on the plant-based snack choice quite than the animal-based choice.
Romain Cadario, Yi Li, Anne-Kathrin Klesse, (2025) Appetite., CC BY
When data isn’t sufficient
Whereas individuals who care most about sustainable consuming might imagine they know higher than others, we discovered that’s not the case. These folks weren’t higher in a position than different individuals to inform the distinction in greenhouse fuel emissions between animal- and plant-based meals with out seeing our carbon label.
However they have been higher learners. When confronted with the details in regards to the variations between animal and plant-based meals on our labels, they have been extra more likely to change their decisions and swap to plant-based meals.
What this implies for customers and companies
A easy change to meals labels may assist customers make extra knowledgeable environmental decisions. For companies and policymakers, it exhibits displaying solely carbon numbers isn’t sufficient – the meals supply is essential.
Some forward-thinking eating places and meals firms are already experimenting with including carbon labels to the menu to encourage diners to choose climate-friendly dishes. Our analysis suggests this method could possibly be simpler when mixed with the brand new carbon labels we designed.
Valmedia, Shutterstock
Implications for local weather motion
As Australia grapples with assembly its local weather commitments, serving to customers perceive the environmental influence of their meals decisions will grow to be more and more necessary.
The problem for companies, policymakers and researchers isn’t convincing folks to care about sustainability – they already do. Almost half of Australian shoppers (46%) say sustainability is necessary to them and influences their purchases, regardless of cost-of-living pressures.
However most sustainable actions in retail contain recyclable packaging, merchandise and supplies, and native produce. The carbon emission implications of those actions, sadly, are far lower than lowering animal-based meals consumption.
As a substitute, we have to concentrate on giving folks the instruments to make their environmental issues rely. Our carbon labels could possibly be the important thing to serving to customers flip their sustainable intentions into significant local weather motion.
