by Mngent
Coming Soon — Warnings on Restaurant Menus
That What You're Eating Causes Climate Change
“In April, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report urged world leaders, especially those in developed countries, to support a transition to sustainable, healthy, low-emissions diets.” (Link)
“Unfortunately, consumers have been resistant to change and many wish to continue eating meat”, a Phys.org report on the study laments.
“Unfortunately”?
It’s not “unfortunate” that consumers exercise freedom of choice to eat meat. What’s “unfortunate” is scientists and activists trying to shame people into eating something against their will.
If some restaurants competing in the marketplace care to attempt to skew their customers’ choices away from meat and towards vegetarian and/or vegan foods, by all means, they should do so. But the jury is out on whether that would improve the sustainability of those restaurants. What’s more, any restaurant that wants to make such a change should do so on its own accord, without the government’s prompting, backing, or mandate.
Even the premise of the study may be in error. Is it really true that chicken and seafood are more “sustainable” than red meat? The Guardian notes that “intensively produced chicken has been found to be damaging for the environment, as has some farmed and trawled fish.”
No one that I’ve seen has done any research regarding what it would cost the restaurant industry to add the warning labels. If I were a restaurant owner and forced to post warning labels, I’d also explain the controversy behind the signage mandate. But the whole argument may be moot. The study revealed only four in ten participants even noticed the warning labels. And that’s in a controlled, online survey.
As the author of the article, Reason Foundation Senior Fellow Baylen Linnekin, notes, “I’ve explained time and again, study after study has shown that few people pay attention to mandated menu labels (except to choose which food or foods to order), and even fewer use that information.”
If that’s the case, this would just be another example of activists misunderstanding human beings. We’re not the cattle whose farts you’re so worried about. We’re people with free will, and we are perfectly capable of making our own decisions about our health.
If some restaurants competing in the marketplace care to attempt to skew their customers’ choices away from meat and towards vegetarian and/or vegan foods, by all means, they should do so. But the jury is out on whether that would improve the sustainability of those restaurants. What’s more, any restaurant that wants to make such a change should do so on its own accord, without the government’s prompting, backing, or mandate.
Even the premise of the study may be in error. Is it really true that chicken and seafood are more “sustainable” than red meat? The Guardian notes that “intensively produced chicken has been found to be damaging for the environment, as has some farmed and trawled fish.”
No one that I’ve seen has done any research regarding what it would cost the restaurant industry to add the warning labels. If I were a restaurant owner and forced to post warning labels, I’d also explain the controversy behind the signage mandate. But the whole argument may be moot. The study revealed only four in ten participants even noticed the warning labels. And that’s in a controlled, online survey.
As the author of the article, Reason Foundation Senior Fellow Baylen Linnekin, notes, “I’ve explained time and again, study after study has shown that few people pay attention to mandated menu labels (except to choose which food or foods to order), and even fewer use that information.”
If that’s the case, this would just be another example of activists misunderstanding human beings. We’re not the cattle whose farts you’re so worried about. We’re people with free will, and we are perfectly capable of making our own decisions about our health.
"That What You're Eating Causes Climate Change!"
AntwortenLöschenI strongly hope so. I'm too cold in winter.