Over one fourth of today's greenhouse gas emissions are the result of agriculture, with the production of meat representing a large portion of this carbon footprint. As the wealth of low- and middle-income countries continues to increase, the demand for animal-sourced protein, such as dairy and meat products, will escalate. At this point in time, livestock feed alone utilizes almost 40% of the world's cropland. The rapidly increasing world population, coupled with a need for environmental sustainability, has renewed our attention on animal-protein substitutes. Apprehensions over climate change have aided an acceleration in the research and development of alternative proteins, which may replace some animal-sourced protein over time. The alternative dairy and meat industry is developing at a yearly rate of 15.8% and is predicted to reach 1.2 trillion $USD by 2030. This emerging market incorporates new technologies in plant-made protein production, manufacturing of animal proteins by fermentation using microbial bioreactors, and accelerated production of cultivated (also known as cell-based) meat. These new technologies should change the global market drammatically. This article describes the history of the alternative protein industry and its' current status, then offers predictions of future pathways for this rapidly accelerating market. More speculatively, it discusses factors that lead to shifts in consumer behavior that trend toward the adoptation of new technologies.
Background: Food production and consumption contributes to one third of households' environmental impact. The environmental impact of different food categories varies and in general environmental footprint of meat is high than fish and vegetable options. Environmental food labels have been suggested as a means to sway consumption patterns. The purpose of this study is to test if different simple eco-labels in combination with posters can influence consumers to select environmentally friendly food options.
Method: Three different labeling systems were tested on warm dishes in a University cafeteria in Oslo, Norway. The first system was traffic-light labels with three symbols (red, yellow and green), the second system was a single-green label that only labeled the environmentally friendliest dishes, and the third system was a single-red label that only labeled the least environmentally friendly option. Posters were placed in the cafeteria, explaining the labeling systems and the climate impact of different food categories. Outcome measures was sales share of meat, fish and vegetarian dishes. The intervention period was separated in two; the first 20 days (period 1) and 22 last days (period 2) to evaluate if the effects of the labels was different when first introduced and after some months.
Results: The traffic-light labels significantly reduced sales of meat dishes with 9% in the period 1 (p < 0.1) but not in period 2. Sales share of fish or vegetarian dishes were not impacted. Single-green and single-red labeling had no effect on sales share of meat, fish or vegetarian dishes. Posters were present during all interventions.
Conclusion: Findings suggests that traffic-light labels in combination with posters can improve the eco-friendliness of customers food choices in a cafeteria setting, at least short-term. Future studies should investigate the long-term effects of simple eco-labels. Additionally, one should study the combined effect of symbols with other changes in the choice architecture.