Dear Label_Name,

Greetings! I hope you are well.

I am writing on behalf of an international publishing house, Science and Education Publishing, USA (http://www.sciepub.com).

Science and Education Publishing (SciEP) is a multidisciplinary open access publisher of Journals covering the fields of Science, Technology and Medicine. All SciEP publications are subject to high-quality peer review, editorial and production processes and are freely available online.

Welcome to the April, 2013 edition of SciEP newsletter, providing monthly summaries of articles on science & education related topics of interest to scientist and professionals. The mission of our journals is to provide an open access forum for publishing new findings on issues pertinent to scientific and academic field. We also invite you to submit original research papers, review articles, short reports, or case studies are considered for publication in our Multidisciplinary Journals.

American Journal of Public Health Research
DOI: 10.12691/ajphr-1-1-3

The Implementation of a Tele-Homecare System with Service Oriented Architecture and HL7 Message Transmission Standard
Ching-Sung Wang

American Journal of Medical and Biological Research
DOI: 10.12691/ajmbr-1-1-2

The Influence of Ethanol on Pyruvate Kinases Activity in Vivo, in Vitro, in Silico
Lelevich Sergey Vladimirovich, Khrustalev Vladislav Victorovich, Barkovsky Eugene Victorovich, Shedogubova Tatyana Aleksandrovna

American Journal of Medical Sciences and Medicine
DOI: 10.12691/ajmsm-1-1-1

Clinical and Histological Features in Wegener Granulomatosis
Li Cavoli Gioacchino, Passantino Rita, Bono Luisa, Tortorici Calogera, Ferrantelli Angelo, Giammarresi Carlo, Rotolo Ugo

American Journal of Infectious Diseases and Microbiology
DOI: 10.12691/ajidm-1-1-2

The Curse of Lymphatic Filariasis: Would the Continual Use of Diethylcarbamazine Eliminate this Scourge in Papua New Guinea?
Anne Lanham, Lillian Mwanri

We have released issues of some journals on February 2013.
American Journal of Public Health Research
American Journal of Medical Sciences and Medicine
American Journal of Medical and Biological Research
American Journal of Pharmacological Sciences
American Journal of Clinical Medicine Research
American Journal of Nursing Research
American Journal of Cancer Prevention
American Journal of Medicine Studies
American Journal of Infectious Diseases and Microbiology
American Journal of Cardiovascular Disease Research
American Journal of Biomedical Research
American Journal of Mechanical Engineering
American Journal of Microbiological Research
Journal of Preventive Medicine
American Journal of Food and Nutrition
American Journal of Hypertension Research
American Journal of Sports Science and Medicine
Journal of Cancer Research and Treatment
American Journal of Zoological Research
Journal of Biomedical Engineering and Technology
American Journal of Microbiological Research
Biomedical Science and Engineering

We are pleased to announce that submissions are now being accepted for peer review for all the journals across all our subject areas in SciEP.

Please submit your manuscript via our online submission system:
http://www.sciepub.com/author/signin

To unsubscribe from our mailing list, please click on the following link: unsubscribe

I am looking forward to hearing from you.

Kind regards,

David Rain
Email:join@sciepub.com
Science and Education Publishing (http://www.sciepub.com)

'Plant-based' versus 'Vegan' & 'High protein' versus 'Low carbon': Exploring Situational Myth-busting, Product Labels, and Green Nudges that Increase Sustainable Meal Choices

Chris Macdonald

Fellow at Lucy Cavendish College, University of Cambridge

Abstract: Recent models suggest that even if fossil fuel emissions were to stop overnight, our global food systems would prevent us from achieving the IPCC’s target of limiting global warming to 1.5°C. When studying the environmental impact of the food sector it is apparent that meat and dairy products, in particular, produce a vast amount of emissions. Furthermore, the livestock sector is the single most significant source of methane which is a particularly potent greenhouse gas. Animal agriculture is also a leading cause of deforestation and biodiversity loss. Accordingly, behavioural scientists are attempting to uncover practical interventions that help to promote the consumption of more plant-based products. In particular, a range of green nudges, such as displaying the carbon emissions of menu items have been effective at increasing the consumption of meatless options. The reported experiments in this paper suggest that product naming, positive framing, and 'situational myth-busting' may also be effective tools. In Experiment 1, the label 'plant-based' outperformed the label 'vegan' by 9 percentage points. In Experiment 2, the added description of 'high protein content' outperformed the added description of 'low carbon emissions' by 16 percentage points. Both experiments were conducted online with 800 UK students (every participant was male, aged 18-25, and was non-vegan and non-vegetarian). While further studies are required, the results suggest that simple low-cost or no-cost product labelling and signage interventions may be an effective strategy for increasing sustainable meal choices. The paper concludes by introducing the term 'green nudge by proxy' and encourages further exploration into this approach.

Keywords: behavioural economics, consumer psychology, green nudges, communication, plant-based, vegan, sustainability, climate action, climatarian diets

Received March 22, 2023; Revised April 25, 2023; Accepted May 07, 2023

Citation: Chris Macdonald, 'Plant-based' versus 'Vegan' & 'High protein' versus 'Low carbon': Exploring Situational Myth-busting, Product Labels, and Green Nudges that Increase Sustainable Meal Choices. Research in Psychology and Behavioral Sciences, 11 (1). 7-11. January 2023. doi:10.12691/rpbs-11-1-2

1. Introduction

Recent models suggest that even if fossil fuel emissions were to stop overnight, our global food systems would prevent us from achieving the IPCC’s target of limiting global warming to 1.5°C [1]. When studying the environmental impact of the food sector it is apparent that meat and dairy products, in particular, produce a vast amount of emissions [2,3,4]. And, when looking at the emissions from meat, the emissions from the beef industry produce a disproportionate amount, evidenced in the graph below.

The UK government are, in many ways, leading the way with regard to emissions targets. The UK government became the first major economy to set a national goal of net zero by 2050, and, importantly, this was then put into law. Accordingly, the UK government have announced a series of progressive plans and policies, such as a ban on the sale of new fossil fuel vehicles by 2035. However, there have been no such announcements with regard to banning or limiting the consumption of high-emission food products. Furthermore, while there have been many reports advocating the taxation of high-emission foods [5,6,7], the UK government has not yet decided to implement taxation in this area.

In response to the disproportionately high emissions of meat and dairy products and the lack of governmental enthusiasm for political intervention, many researchers have been exploring the efficacy of alternative behavioural interventions that may increase more sustainable consumer choices [8,9,10]. These are often referred to as ‘green nudges’. More specifically, to be deemed a mere ‘nudge’, it must promote beneficial behavioural change without preventing the other options [11].

Figure 1. *Data source [2]. Graph (OurWorldinData.org)

Examples of green nudges include reorganising a canteen in such a way that the consumer has to walk past the low-carbon meal options to arrive at the options that result in greater emissions and therefore render the climatarian choice easier [12]. And indeed this was shown to be effective, providing the options were widely separated [12]. It was also found that doubling the proportion of low-emission food options can promote more climate-friendly choices [13].

In addition to adding more plant-based options or altering the physical placement of meals, researchers have found that small discounts [14,15] and displaying carbon emissions can also be effective green nudges [8,9,10,16,17].

Therefore, current research suggests that low-cost and no-cost interventions can be effective tools for increasing lower-emission meal choices. In this research paper, I will explore the efficacy of interventions that target product labels and signage. In particular, interventions that may address consumer concerns and misconceptions.

2. Experiment 1: ‘Plant-based’ versus ‘Vegan’

In Experiment 1, I wanted to compare the efficacy of the labels ‘plant-based burger’ and ‘vegan burger’.

As noted by the British Dietetic Association, a plant-based diet is “based on foods that come from plants with few or no ingredients that come from animals.” [18] Whereas vegans don’t eat any animal products at all [18]. Therefore, although a meatless meal may be appropriately labelled as either plant-based or vegan, the term vegan could be associated with greater restrictions which may discourage product purchases. Perhaps accordingly, prior research has shown that while 58% of consumers would buy plant-based foods, only 43% would buy vegan [19].

The more restrictive label of vegan could be viewed as a negative framing whereas the label of plant-based could be viewed as a more positive framing as it is highlighting what the product contains rather than what it does not. A positive framing has been shown to be a more effective influence on consumer behaviour in past experiments [20,21] perhaps this helps to explain why consumers appear to prefer the term plant-based [19]. In short, the label of vegan may be interpreted as ‘getting less of something’ whereas the label of plant-based may be interpreted as ‘getting more of something’. In other words, the same meatless menu item has the potential to be viewed as 'getting less meat in your diet' or 'getting more plants in your diet' and the labelling of the product may be a contributing factor.

It could also be said that the term plant-based is more descriptive whereas the term vegan is somewhat nebulous which may result in confusion or suspicion. Prior research has shown that nonvegans often view vegan products as ‘unnatural’ [22]. One might assume that consumers might be less inclined to hold this view if the product were labelled as plant-based.

In short, not only may the term plant-based be seen as a more positive framing, but it may also result in the menu item appearing more familiar, reassuring, and perhaps, more ‘natural’. This may facilitate increased consumption as consumers will often refrain from food choices that might attract attention or judgment from their peers [23,24,25].

2.1. Hypothesis

In Experiment 1, I wanted to test the hypothesis that more participants would choose the non-beef menu item when it was labelled as ‘plant-based’ when compared to it being labelled as ‘vegan’. In particular, I wanted to test this hypothesis with men. Men eat more meat and are less likely to avoid or limit meat consumption [26,27] and, as a result, they will be a more challenging audience to influence.

2.2. Experiment Design

In Experiment 1, participants were sent a link giving them access to a private online portal where they were asked to look at a lunchtime menu and indicate which item they would choose. 400 UK students took part. Every participant was male, aged 18-25, and was non-vegan and non-vegetarian.

The participants were randomly assigned to one of two groups: Group VB and Group PB. There were 200 participants in each group.

In Group VB, the menu had two items: A beef burger and a vegan burger. In Group PB, the menu contained two items: A beef burger and a plant-based burger.

To help incentivise the non-beef option, it was 10% cheaper than the beef option.

Group VB

Lunchtime menu

Beef Burger £5.00

Vegan Burger £4.50

Group PB

Lunchtime menu

Beef Burger £5.00

Plant-based Burger £4.50

Therefore, the only difference between the menus was that Group VB had the option of a vegan burger whereas Group PB had the option of a plant-based burger.

2.3. Results

In Group VB (n = 200), 34 participants chose the non-beef option. In Group PB (n = 200), 52 participants chose the non-beef option.

The hypothesis was that more participants would choose the non-beef menu item when it was labelled as ‘plant-based’ (Group PB) when compared to it being labelled as ‘vegan’ (Group VB). The data supports this hypothesis as in Group VB, 17% of participants chose the non-beef option whereas, in Group PB, 26% of participants chose the non-beef option.

The responses required to assess the hypothesis involve binary variables: either the participants chose the non-beef option or they did not. Accordingly, to assess for statistical significance, I ran a test of proportions. The test of proportions revealed that there was a statistically significant difference between Group VB and Group PB (χ2 (1) = 4.28, P = 0.039). Therefore, the hypothesis holds.

3. Experiment 2: ‘High protein’ versus ‘Low carbon’

In Experiment 2, I wanted to compare the efficacy of the labels ‘low carbon emissions’ and ‘high protein content’.

While displaying carbon emissions has been shown to be an effective green nudge [10,16,17], it may not be the most efficient use of limited display real estate (e.g. a printed menu, website, or display board). For example, prior research suggests that while vegan food consumption is widely reported as being better for the environment, consumers of vegan products may be more interested in other aspects such as nutrition [28].

When looking at micronutrients and macronutrients, protein has been noted as one of the main nutrients that consumers look for when selecting meal options [19]. Furthermore, when specifically looking at diets that limit or remove meat products, there is a common consumer concern that it might result in a protein deficiency [29,30,31].

However, as there are many high-protein vegan meals, there need not be consumer concern. Furthermore, elite athletes who require above-average amounts of protein for optimal performance are able to meet their nutrient targets on a meat-free diet, evidenced by the growing number of vegan professional bodybuilders and powerlifters.

And so, to help placate concern and better inform consumers, signage and labels that indicate plant-based protein content may be beneficial. And, given that prior research suggests that protein is a key focus and concern when considering meatless options, it may be more effective than displaying carbon emissions. Protein content labels may act as a ‘situational myth-buster’ and therefore remove a key barrier to the uptake of climatarian diets. In addition to this, as with the label of 'plant-based', a ‘high protein content’ label may provide valuable positive framing by focusing on what the product has rather than what it does not have.

Therefore, given that the term ‘plant-based’ outperformed ‘vegan’ in Experiment 1, given that positive framing has been shown to be an effective consumer influence in prior studies [20,21], and given that concerns of protein deficiencies appear to be a particular focus for those considering meat-free options [30,31], I predicted that the label of ‘high protein content’ would outperform the label of ‘low carbon emissions’ despite the fact that displaying the carbon emissions of menu items has been shown to be an effective green nudge in prior experiments [10,17].

3.1. Hypothesis

In Experiment 2, I wanted to test the hypothesis that participants would be more likely to purchase the non-beef menu item when it was labelled as ‘high protein content' when compared to it being labelled as ‘low carbon emissions’.

3.2. Experiment Design

In Experiment 2, participants were sent a link giving them access to a private online portal where they were asked to look at a lunchtime menu and indicate which item they would choose. 400 UK students took part. To maintain consistency across the experiments, every participant was male, aged 18-25, and was non-vegan and non-vegetarian.

The participants were randomly assigned to one of two groups: Group LC and Group HP. There were 200 participants in each group.

In Group LC and Group HP, the menu had two items: A beef chilli and a bean chilli. However, next to the non-beef option, Group LC and Group HP had different additional information written in parentheses.

To help incentivise the non-beef option, it was 10% cheaper than the beef option.

Group LC

Lunchtime menuBeef Chilli £5.00

Bean Chilli £4.50 (Low carbon emissions)

Group HP

Lunchtime menuBeef Chilli £5.00

Bean Chilli £4.50 (High protein content)

Therefore, the only difference between the menus was that Group LC had ‘Low carbon emissions’ written in parentheses whereas Group HP had ‘High protein content’ written in parentheses.

3.3. Results

In Group LC (n = 200), 87 participants chose the non-beef option. In Group HP (n = 200), 119 participants chose the non-beef option.

The hypothesis was that more participants would choose the non-beef menu item when it was labelled as ‘high protein content’ when compared to it being labelled as ‘low carbon emissions’. The data supports this hypothesis as in Group LC, 43.5% of participants chose the non-beef option whereas, in Group HP, 59.5% of participants chose the non-beef option.

The responses required to assess the hypothesis involve binary variables: either the participants chose the non-beef option or they did not. Accordingly, to assess for statistical significance, I ran a test of proportions. The test of proportions revealed that there was a statistically significant difference between Group LC and Group HP (χ2 (1) = 9.618, P = 0.0019). Therefore, the hypothesis holds.

4. Conclusion

Lowering the emissions of the food sector is critical to achieving the IPCC’s target of limiting global warming to 1.5°C [1]. When studying the environmental impact of the food sector it is apparent that meat and dairy products, in particular, produce a vast amount of emissions [2,3,4]. Furthermore, the livestock sector is the single most important source of methane which is a particularly potent greenhouse gas [32]. Animal agriculture is also a leading cause of deforestation and biodiversity loss [2,33]. Accordingly, behavioural scientists are attempting to uncover practical interventions that help to promote the consumption of more plant-based products.

In particular, a range of green nudges, such as product placement and displaying the carbon emissions of menu items have been effective at increasing the consumption of meatless meal options [8,9,10,14,15,16,17].

My research suggests that product naming may also be an effective tool. My research suggests that 'plant-based' may be a more effective term when compared to 'vegan', and 'high protein content' may be a more effective term when compared to 'low carbon emissions'.

Prior food studies have shown that nutrition may be the most important influence on meal choices, followed by other practical factors such as taste, cost, time, and familiarity [34,35,36]. While the best solution may be a combination of many approaches, I encourage future researchers to explore the names of products and ways to display their nutrients to explore how this may promote more climatarian choices. In particular, experiments that help to address misconceptions of meatless options lacking sufficient protein. In other words, nutrient labels may act as a ‘green nudge by proxy’ and may potentially be more effective than the more direct approach of displaying emissions data or environmental impact. Prior research suggests that even simple and discrete nutrition labelling can be effective at promoting more healthy meal choices [37,38,39] and so this may be particularly fertile ground for effective interventions relating to climatarian food choices.

Prior research also suggests that meal preferences vary significantly by demographics [35,40,41], therefore targeted interventions for specific groups may be optimal in future research. In particular, females are more likely to associate meat with environmental concerns and are more likely to follow a vegan diet [15,42]. Adding to the nuance of sustainable food choices, the setting and situation in which meat-free options are consumed is said to have a significant impact on the acceptance of these products [43,44]. As is widely noted by many researchers in this area, more research is needed to better understand the underlying mechanisms and more research is needed to better understand the long-term effects of interventions and their ability to shift habits [45]. As noted by Rust et al., due to the complexity of factors that contribute to meat eating, a combination of “sustained, context-specific interventions are likely to work better than brief, one-dimensional approaches.” (2020).

I encourage more researchers to explore this fascinating and nuanced area. There is much to be explored and significant potential for the reduction of GHG emissions [2,3,4,46,47,48]. Current research suggests that UK citizens are highly concerned about climate change, they want to do something to help, and they believe that reducing the consumption of animal products will help [36,40], perhaps, UK consumers merely require the right combination of deeply considered nudges.

References

[1]   | Clark MA, Domingo NG, Colgan K, Thakrar SK, Tilman D, Lynch J, Azevedo IL, Hill JD. 2020. Global food system emissions could preclude achieving the 1.5° and 2 °C climate change targets. Science 370:(6517) 705-708.
[2]   | Poore J, Nemecek T. 2018. Reducing food’s environmental impacts through producers and consumers. Science 992: 987-992.
[3]   | Kim BF, Santo RE, Scatterday AP, Fry JP, Synk CM, Cebron SR, Mekonnen MM, Hoekstra AY, de Pee S, Bloem MW, Neff RA, Nachman KE. 2019. Country-specific dietary shifts to mitigate climate and water crises. Global Environ. Change 101926.
[4]   | Willett W, Rockström J, Loken B, Springmann M, Lang T, Vermeulen S, Garnett T, Tilman D, DeClerck F, Wood A, Jonell M, et al. 2019. Food in the Anthropocene: the EAT–Lancet Commission on Healthy Diets from Sustainable Food Systems, 393: 447-492.
[5]   | Wellesley L, Happer C, Froggatt A. 2015. Changing climate, changing diets: Pathways to lower meat consumption. Chatham House Report.
[6]   | Park T. 2020. A menu for change: Using behavioural science to promote sustainable diets around the world. The Behavourial Insights Team.
[7]   | Springmann M, Mason-D’Croz D, Robinson S, Wiebe K, Godfray HCJ, Rayner M. 2017. Mitigation potential and global health impacts from emissions pricing of food commodities. Nature Climate Change (7) 69-74.
[8]   | Osman M, Thornton K. 2019. Traffic light labelling of meals to promote sustainable consumption and healthy eating. Appetite 138: 60-71.
[9]   | Slapø HB, Karevold KI. 2019. Simple eco-labels to nudge customers toward the most environmentally friendly warm dishes: An empirical study in a cafeteria setting. Front Sustain Food Syst 3: 1-9.
[10]   | Lohmann PM, Gsottbauer E, Doherty A, Kontoleon A. 2022. Do carbon footprint labels promote climatarian diets? Evidence from a large-scale field experiment. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 114:(102693).
[11]   | Thaler RH, Sunstein CR. 2009. Nudge: Improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness. Yale University Press.
[12]   | Garnett E, Marteau T, Sandbrook C, Pilling M, Balmford A. 2020. Order of meals at the counter and distance between options affect student cafeteria vegetarian sales. Nature Food 1: 485-488.
[13]   | Garnett E, Balmford A, Sandbrook C, Pilling M, Marteau T. 2019. Impact of increasing vegetarian availability on meal selection and sales in cafeterias. PNAS 116:(42) 20923-20929.
[14]   | Garnett E, Balmford A, Marteau T, Pilling M, Sandbrook C. 2021. Price of change: does a small alteration to the price of meat and vegetarian options affect their sales? Journal of Environmental Psychology 75: 101589.
[15]   | Michel F, Hartmann C, Siegrist M. 2021. Consumers’ associations, perceptions and acceptance of meat and plant-based meat alternatives. Food Quality and Preference 87: 104063.
[16]   | Spaargaren G, Koppen CSAKV, Janssen AM, Hendriksen A, Kolfschoten CJ. 2013. Consumer responses to the carbon labelling of food: A real life experiment in a canteen practice. Sociol Rural 53: (4).
[17]   | Brunner F, Kurz V, Bryngelsson D, Hedenus F. 2018. Carbon label at a university restaurant – Label implementation and evaluation. Ecol Econom 146: 658-667.
[18]   | BDA. 2022. Vegetarian, vegan and plant-based diet: Food Fact Sheet. British Dietetic Association Sep 23. bda.uk.com/resource/vegetarian-vegan-plant-based-diet.html.
[19]   | Bandoim L. 2019. Why consumers prefer plant-based instead of vegetarian or vegan labels. Forbes Nov 30.
[20]   | Gallagher K, Updegraff J. 2012. Health Message Framing Effects on Attitudes, Intentions, and Behavior: A Meta-analytic Review. Annals of behavioral medicine 43: 101-116.
[21]   | Lee HC, Liu SF, Cheng YC. 2018. Positive or Negative? The Influence of Message Framing, Regulatory Focus, and Product Type. International Journal of Communication 12: 788-805.
[22]   | Souza LGS, Atkinson A, Montague B. 2020. Perceptions about Veganism. The Vegan Society and The Ecologist Jan 10.13140/RG.2.2.24333.90084.
[23]   | Hartmann C, Ruby MB, Schmidt P, Siegrist M. 2018. Brave, health-conscious, and environmentally friendly: Positive impressions of insect food product consumers. Food Quality and Preference. 68 64-71.
[24]   | Mooney KM, DeTore J, Malloy KA. 1994. Perceptions of women related to food choice. Sex Roles 31:(7) 433-442.
[25]   | Yantcheva B, Brindal E. 2013. How much does what you eat matter? The potential role of meal size, fat content, and gender on ratings of desirability. Eating Behaviors 14:(3) 285-290.
[26]   | McCarthy J, Dekoster S. 2020. Nearly one in four U.S. Have cut back on eating meat. Gallup Jan 27 news.gallup.com/poll/282779/nearly-one-four-cut-back-eating-meat.aspx.
[27]   | Rosenfeld DL, Tomiyama AJ. 2021. Gender differences in meat consumption and openness to vegetarianism. Appetite 34166748.
[28]   | Cooper K, Dedehayir O, Riverola C, Harrington S, Alpert E. 2022. Exploring Consumer Perceptions of the Value Proposition Embedded in Vegan Food Products Using Text Analytics. Sustainability 14: 2075.
[29]   | Weinrich R. 2019. Opportunities for the adoption of health-based sustainable dietary patterns: a review on consumer research of meat substitutes. Sustainability 15: 11.
[30]   | Beacom E, Repar L, Bogue J. 2022. Consumer motivations and desired product attributes for 2.0 plant-based products: a conceptual model of consumer insight for market-oriented product development and marketing. SN Bus Econ 2:(8) 115.
[31]   | Rune CJB, Song Q, Clausen MP, Giacalone D. 2022. Consumer perception of plant-based burger recipes studied by projective mapping. Future Foods 6: 100168.
[32]   | Gerber P, Steinfeld H, Henderson B, Mottet A, Opio C, Dijkman J, Falcucci A, Tempio G. 2013. Tackling Climate Change Through Livestock: A Global Assessment of Emissions and Mitigation Opportunities. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
[33]   | Machovina B, Feeley KJ, Ripple WJ. 2015. Biodiversity conservation: The key is reducing meat consumption. The Science of the Total Environment 536: 419-431.
[34]   | Neff RA, Edwards D, Palmer A, Ramsing R, Righter A, Wolfson J. 2018. Reducing meat consumption in the USA: a nationally representative survey of attitudes and behaviours. Public Health Nutr 21:(10) 1835-1844.
[35]   | Livingstone KM, Lamb KE, Abbott G, Worsley T, McNaughton SA. 2020. Ranking of meal preferences and interactions with demographic characteristics: a discrete choice experiment in young adults. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 17: 157.
[36]   | Macdonald C. 2020. Climate Psychology: What is preventing the uptake in lifestyle changes that would significantly reduce one's environmental impact? The Open Science Journal. 5: (3) 1-15.
[37]   | Young L, Swinburn B. 2002. Impact of the Pick the Tick food information programme on the salt content of food in New Zealand. Health Promot Int. 17: (1).
[38]   | Williams P, McMahon A, Bousted R. 2003. A case study of sodium reduction in breakfast cereals and the impact of the Pick the Tick food information program in Australia. Health Promot Int 18: (1).

[39]  
Vandevijvere S, Vermote M, Egnell M, Galan P, Talati Z, Pettigrew S, Hercberg S, Julia C. 2020. Consumers’ food choices, understanding and perceptions in response to different front-of-pack nutrition labelling systems in Belgium: results from an online experimental study. Arch Public Health 78: (30).

[40]   | Bryant CJ. 2019. We Can’t Keep Meating Like This: Attitudes towards Vegetarian and Vegan Diets in the United Kingdom. Sustainability. 11: (23) 6844.
[41]   | Rust NA, Ridding L, Ward C, Clark B, Kehoe L, Dora M, Whittingham MJ, McGowan P, Chaudhary A, Reynolds CJ, Trivedy C, West N. 2020. How to transition to reduced-meat diets that benefit people and the planet. Sci Total Environ 718: 137208.
[42]   | Craig WJ. 2009. Health effects of vegan diets, The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 89: (5) 1627S-1633S.
[43]   | Cardello AV, Schutz HG. 1996. Food appropriateness measures as an adjunct to consumer preference/acceptability evaluation. Food Quality and Preference. 7: (3) 239-249.
[44]   | Meiselman HL, Johnson JL, Reeve W, Crouch JE. 2000. Demonstrations of the influence of the eating environment on food acceptance. Appetite 35:(3) 231-237.
[45]   | Kwasny T, Dobernig K, Riefler P. 2022. Towards reduced meat consumption: A systematic literature review of intervention effectiveness, 2001–2019. Appetite 168: 105739.
[46]   | Bajželj B, Richards KS, Allwood JM, Smith P, Dennis JS, Curmi E, Gilligan CA. 2014. Importance of food-demand management for climate mitigation. Nature Clim Change 4: (10) 924-929.
[47]   | Temme EH, Vellinga RE, de Ruiter H, Kugelberg S, van de Kamp M, Milford A, Alessandrini R, Bartolini F, Sanz-Cobena A, Leip A. 2020. Demand-side food policies for public and planetary health. Sustainability 12:(15).
[48]   | Reisch L.A. 2021. Shaping healthy and sustainable food systems with behavioural food policy. Eur. Rev Agric Econ 1-29.