People are used to seeing stark warnings on tobacco products alerting them about the potentially deadly risks to health. Now a study suggests similar labelling on food could help them make wiser choices about not just their health, but the health of the planet.

The research, by academics at Durham University, found that warning labels including a graphic image – similar to those warning of impotence, heart disease or lung cancer on cigarette packets – could reduce selections of meals containing meat by 7-10%.

It is a change that could have a material impact on the future of the planet. According to a recent YouGov poll, 72% of the UK population classify themselves as meat-eaters. But the Climate Change Committee (CCC), which advises the government on its net zero goals, has said the UK needs to slash its meat consumption by 20% by 2030, and 50% by 2050, in order to meet them.

  • eric@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    20
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Meat is cheap because of govt subsidies. And lab grown meat will soon be able to undercut slaughtered meat in price without those subsidies, so the whole “let poor people eat what they can afford” argument will switch sides in the coming years without new protectionist governmental policies.

    • hark@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      How soon? Last I heard, they had insurmountable scaling issues.

      • eric@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Problems are always insurmountable until they aren’t. Scaling is one of the last challenges businesses face when bringing new products to market. I don’t have any inside information, but investment is still trending up and companies aren’t throwing in the towel, so they still think they will be able to solve it. Once they do, the industry will change incredibly fast, especially with a market estimated at close to $100b per year.

      • eric@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        No one said meat is “cheap.” The word was used as a relative comparison, meaning slaughtered meat is cheaper than lab-grown alternatives.

              • eric@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Are you really too ADD to even finish my first sentence?

                If not, you are simply cherry picking the quote and leaving out “because of govt subsidies” because it doesn’t fit your narrative. The relative comparison is that meat would be more “god dam expensive” without govt subsidies. It is also much more expensive than lab grown meat, which was my point, in part because lab grown meat is not subsidized.

                • wooki@lemmynsfw.com
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Meat is cheap No one said meat is “cheap”

                  Building a premise out of a lie just makes you a liar.