New Study Shows Adding a “Climate Impact” Label to Fast Food Options May Have an Affect on Ordering Habits

Nothing feels quite like you’re on the right side of an argument like guilt-tripping other people into behaving how you want them to, am I right?

You already know how much the entitled, Gen-Z climate brats get on my nerves, so that’s not new information. I did, however, find this story to fit well with my theme of “Could Y’all Please Shut Up Already?”

From The College Fix:

Fast food consumers can potentially be guilted into buying products with less red meat and instead opting for more environmentally friendly options when “climate impact” labels are used, according to a taxpayer-funded study.

The paper, published in JAMA Network Open, concluded that labeling red meat options as “high–climate impact” made customers less likely to order those products.

The experiment, conducted randomly and online, asked participants to select from a fast food menu one item they would order for dinner.

Participants received different menus, a control group with neutral labeling, an experimental group with negative labeling on red meat and one with positive labeling on chicken, fish or vegetarian items.

Johns Hopkins University Professor Julia Wolfson provided further insights to The College Fix via email.

“[T]hese findings suggest that climate labels in fast food restaurants, particularly warning labels on beef items, help nudge consumers towards more sustainable choices,” Wolfson said.

“We hope these findings are used by restaurants and public health practitioners to continue developing strategies to nudge consumers towards food choices that are both healthier for people and the planet,” the public health professor said. “There is still more research to be done to explore the effectiveness of climate labels in real world settings and in other types of food environments.”

Among the group that received the negative emissions labeling on red meat, there was a 23 percent drop in the rate of participants that ordered one of those items when compared with the control group. There was a much higher impact of the negative labels on the customers’ choices than there was with the positive labels on low-emissions options.

The researchers did note that participants could have been subjected to “social desirability bias,” in which their choice was influenced by the perception of others. The researchers said that this could have overstated the impact of the negative labels.

Researchers on the project benefitted from federal funding, with the total grant amount at least partially supporting the project totaling more than $3 million between the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation.

I’m suddenly craving red meat…

The fact that this was taxpayer-funded makes me hate it even more. It’s not that I don’t care about the climate. I do. What I don’t care for is the support of a hot, new social problem when it’s convenient and then the abandonment of that passion when it isn’t…

If you’re gonna annoy the sh*t out of people for their choices, then at least fully commit yourself to your holier-than-thou remonstration… I’d at least have a little more respect for you.

If flying private really bothers you, then call John Kerry out for the flaming hypocrite that he is.

If gas guzzling SUVs make you wanna cry, then whine about it to Joe Biden, or Cringe and Ginge…

I’ll spare everyone from even going into a Mayor Pete scenario…

There’s a literal endless stream of self-righteous, hypocritical jacka$$es in the public sphere to choose from… make an example out of one of ‘em!! (never gonna happen… I’m aware)

I mean… for so-called “environmental activists” who really care about the environment, they’ve been awfully quiet about East Palestine…

Just sayin’…

If you’re gonna care, then you gotta care all the time. If not… then please just STFU already…