Cigarette-style meat warning labels slammed — are they coming to stores?

American shoppers are likely to have a serious beef with these “shame-inducing” stickers.

A new study has found that consumers are less likely to buy meat products that feature “gruesome” cigarette-style warnings on them, sparking speculation that they could soon be coming to supermarkets across the United States.

Researchers from Delft University of Technology in the Netherlands carried out several tests on shoppers before concluding that “adding a sticker to a meat package, warning potential customers about the negative consequences of their purchase, may be an effective way to influence buyers’ behavior.”

The news is sure to thrill American animal rights activists and vegans, many of whom believe that excess meat consumption in the US has led to inhumane factory farming and environmental degradation.

However, dietitian Diana Rodgers — who co-authored the best-selling book “Sacred Cow: The Case for (Better) Meat” — told The Post on Tuesday that she’s against the labels.

“High-income countries are already trending down in meat consumption,” the dietitian declared. “We are seeing iron deficiency and meat is the best source [of iron]. We need to curb ultra-processed foods, not healthy proteins like meat.”

5

Rodgers further claimed that meat provides “critical nutrients hard or impossible to get from plants” and that it “contributes to cognitive development in children.”

Meat eaters across the US will also likely loathe the labels if a recent reaction from neighbors north of the border is any indication.

Last year, carnivorous Canadians exploded with rage after the government backed down in the face of widespread backlash, with the proposal turning out to be all sizzle and no steak.

5

The new study saw researchers conduct three separate tests in a bid to gauge consumer reaction regarding the hypothetical warning labels.

In the first test, 161 volunteers were shown one of two packets of chicken breasts. One packet featured no warning label, while the second was emblazed with a sticker showing chickens behind the bars of a cage alongside the message: “Eating meat makes animals suffer.”

The participants were subsequently asked how likely they were to buy the meat that they were shown. The results revealed that those who saw the packet with the warning label were less likely to purchase the product.

5

In the second test, six different meat-shaming labels were shown to 483 volunteers in order to determine which messages were most effective at repelling the consumer.

Two messages were related to animal welfare, two pertained to the environmental impact of farming and two warned consumers about the personal health consequences of consuming too much meat.

Some messages were personalized — featuring the word “you” — while others were more informational.

5

The researchers concluded that the warning labels were all equally effective, regardless of the type of message or whether it was delivered in a personalized or informational tone.

Finally, the researchers conducted a third test showing 563 participants labels purportedly created by the United Nations, Greenpeace and private nutritionist Green Eatz. 

The academics wanted to test whether consumers would be better deterred by a warning from the government, a warning from an environmental agency or a warning from a nutritionist.

The test found the type of messenger made little difference in consumer purchases.

5

Last year, Canadian consumers blasted their country’s meat warning label, with one describing it as “ridiculous.”

“Meat has been a staple of the human diet for millennia. The problem is processed food made in factories with refined ingredients,” they raged.

According to an article originally published in the Conversation, “the average meat intake for someone living in a high-income country is 200-250g a day, far higher than the 80-90g recommended by the United Nations.”

Meanwhile, a separate US survey from 2021 found that almost half of all people had felt pressured to cut down on their meat consumption or refrain from eating it entirely.