• Lindsey Smith Taillie, Maxime Bercholz, Carmen E Prestemon, Isabella C A Higgins, Anna H Grummon, Marissa G Hall, and Lindsay M Jaacks.
• Carolina Population Center, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, United States of America.
• PLoS Med. 2023 Sep 1; 20 (9): e1004284e1004284.

BackgroundPolicies to reduce red meat intake are important for mitigating climate change and improving public health. We tested the impact of taxes and warning labels on red meat purchases in the United States. The main study question was, will taxes and warning labels reduce red meat purchases?Methods And FindingsWe recruited 3,518 US adults to participate in a shopping task in a naturalistic online grocery store from October 18, 2021 to October 28, 2021. Participants were randomized to one of 4 conditions: control (no tax or warning labels, n = 887), warning labels (health and environmental warning labels appeared next to products containing red meat, n = 891), tax (products containing red meat were subject to a 30% price increase, n = 874), or combined warning labels + tax (n = 866). We used fractional probit and Poisson regression models to assess the co-primary outcomes, percent, and count of red meat purchases, and linear regression to assess the secondary outcomes of nutrients purchased. Most participants identified as women, consumed red meat 2 or more times per week, and reported doing all of their household's grocery shopping. The warning, tax, and combined conditions led to lower percent of red meat-containing items purchased, with 39% (95% confidence interval (CI) [38%, 40%]) of control participants' purchases containing red meat, compared to 36% (95% CI [35%, 37%], p = 0.001) of warning participants, 34% (95% CI [33%, 35%], p < 0.001) of tax participants, and 31% (95% CI [30%, 32%], p < 0.001) of combined participants. A similar pattern was observed for count of red meat items. Compared to the control, the combined condition reduced calories purchased (-312.0 kcals, 95% CI [-590.3 kcals, -33.6 kcals], p = 0.027), while the tax (-10.4 g, 95% CI [-18.2 g, -2.5 g], p = 0.01) and combined (-12.8 g, 95% CI [-20.7 g, -4.9 g], p = 0.001) conditions reduced saturated fat purchases; no condition affected sodium purchases. Warning labels decreased the perceived healthfulness and environmental sustainability of red meat, while taxes increased perceived cost. The main limitations were that the study differed in sociodemographic characteristics from the US population, and only about 30% to 40% of the US population shops for groceries online.ConclusionsWarning labels and taxes reduced red meat purchases in a naturalistic online grocery store. Trial Registration: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ NCT04716010.Copyright: © 2023 Taillie et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

16 keywords...

hide…