Luick Madison, Stewart Cristina, Clark Michael, Bateman Paul, Biggs Elizabeth, Cook Brian, Little Melissa, Wren Gina M, Jebb Susan A, Pechey Rachel
Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Radcliffe Observatory Quarter, Woodstock Road, Oxford, OX2 6GG, UK.
MRC/CSO Social and Public Health Sciences Unit, School of Health and Wellbeing, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.
BMC Public Health. 2025 Jan 11;25(1):127. doi: 10.1186/s12889-024-21272-4.
Reducing the environmental impact of foods consumed is important for meeting climate goals. We aimed to conduct a randomised controlled trial to test whether ecolabels reduce the environmental impact of food selected in worksite cafeterias, alone or in combination with increased availability of more sustainable meal options.
Worksite cafeterias (n = 96) were randomised to one of three study groups, with 54 included for final analysis. One group was intended to increase the availability of meat-free options, but no change was implemented. Therefore, this group was treated as part of the control, creating two groups: (1) control (no ecolabels) (n = 35), and (2) ecolabels (n = 19). Regression analysis assessed the primary outcome of total environmental impact of hot meals sold over a 6-week period. Secondary outcome analyses explored the individual environmental indicators that composed the total environmental impact score (i.e., greenhouse gas emissions, biodiversity loss, eutrophication, and water scarcity). The mean weekly environmental impact scores of hot meal options over the full 12-week trial period were assessed using hierarchical mixed effects models.
There was no significant effect of the intervention on the environmental impact scores of meals sold (mean difference between control and intervention sites: -1.4%, 95%CI: -33.6%, + 30.8%). There was no evidence of an effect in mean weekly environmental impact score (-5.4%, 95%CI: -12.6%, + 2.5%), nor in any of the four individual environmental indicators (greenhouse gas emissions: -3.6%, 95%CI: -30.7%, 34.3%; biodiversity loss: 2.0%, 95%CI: -25.8%, 40.2%; eutrophication: -2.4%, 95%CI: -29.3%, 34.7%; water scarcity: -0.4%, 95%CI: -28.7%, 39.1%).
Ecolabels may not be an effective tool to shift consumer behaviour in worksite cafeterias towards meals with lower environmental impact.
The study was pre-registered prospectively on ISRCTN ( https://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN10268258 ; 06/01/2022).
降低所消费食物的环境影响对于实现气候目标至关重要。我们旨在开展一项随机对照试验，以测试生态标签能否降低工作场所自助餐厅所选购食物的环境影响，单独使用生态标签或与增加更具可持续性的餐食选择相结合的情况下。
工作场所自助餐厅（n = 96）被随机分配到三个研究组之一，最终纳入54个进行分析。其中一组旨在增加无肉选项的供应，但未实施任何改变。因此，该组被视为对照组的一部分，从而形成两组：（1）对照组（无生态标签）（n = 35），以及（2）生态标签组（n = 19）。回归分析评估了6周内售出的热餐的总体环境影响这一主要结果。次要结果分析探究了构成总体环境影响得分的各个环境指标（即温室气体排放、生物多样性丧失、富营养化和水资源短缺）。使用分层混合效应模型评估了整个12周试验期内热餐选项的平均每周环境影响得分。
干预措施对售出餐食的环境影响得分没有显著影响（对照组和干预组之间的平均差异：-1.4%，95%置信区间：-33.6%，+30.8%）。没有证据表明对平均每周环境影响得分有影响（-5.4%，95%置信区间：-12.6%，+2.5%），在四个单独的环境指标中也均未发现有影响（温室气体排放：-3.6%，95%置信区间：-30.7%，34.3%；生物多样性丧失：2.0%，95%置信区间：-25.8%，40.2%；富营养化：-2.4%，95%置信区间：-29.3%，34.7%；水资源短缺：-0.4%，95%置信区间：-28.7%，39.1%）。
生态标签可能不是一种有效的工具，无法促使工作场所自助餐厅的消费者行为转向选择对环境影响较小的餐食。
该研究已在国际标准随机对照试验编号系统（ISRCTN）上进行了前瞻性预注册（https://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN10268258；2022年1月6日）。
