Researchers tested whether adding climate-friendly labels to cafeteria food could help reduce environmental impact. They put special icons on menu items at three college dining halls to show which foods produced more or less greenhouse gases. While the labels did reduce the amount of food being served overall, students’ actual eating habits didn’t change much. The study suggests that simply labeling food with climate information might not be enough to make people choose more environmentally friendly meals on their own.

The Quick Take

  • What they studied: Whether adding special icons to show which foods are better or worse for the environment would make college students choose more climate-friendly meals
  • Who participated: Students at a large Midwestern university who regularly ate at campus dining halls. Researchers tracked over 1 million dining hall visits and surveyed 799 frequent diners. They also held focus groups with 23 students to understand their thoughts.
  • Key finding: The climate labels did reduce how much high-emission food was served overall, but when researchers looked more carefully at specific food items, only low-emission foods showed a real decrease in the labeled dining halls compared to unlabeled ones. More importantly, students’ actual eating habits didn’t change based on surveys—they ate roughly the same foods regardless of the labels.
  • What it means for you: If you see climate labels on cafeteria menus, they might influence what gets served, but they probably won’t automatically change your food choices. You’d need to actively pay attention to the labels and decide to make different choices yourself. This suggests that labels alone need to be paired with other strategies to really shift eating habits.

The Research Details

This study used a cluster-randomized design, which means researchers divided six dining halls into three pairs and randomly chose which hall in each pair would get the climate labels. Three halls displayed special traffic light-style icons (like a stoplight) on all menu items for 10 weeks, showing whether each food had high, moderate, or low greenhouse gas emissions. The other three halls had no labels and served as the comparison group. Researchers collected data in two main ways: they tracked actual food service records from over 1 million dining hall visits, and they surveyed 799 students about what they actually ate at the beginning and end of the study. They also held five focus group discussions with 23 students to understand their thoughts about the labels.

The climate labels were designed like traffic lights—red for high-emission foods, yellow for moderate, and green for low-emission foods. Each icon showed the environmental impact based on the entire life cycle of the recipe, from growing ingredients to cooking and serving. Students also received information materials explaining what the icons meant and why greenhouse gas emissions matter for the environment.

The study ran for 14 weeks total: four weeks of baseline data collection before the labels appeared, then 10 weeks with the labels in place. Researchers used statistical methods designed for this type of grouped data to compare how much food was served in the labeled versus unlabeled dining halls.

This research approach is important because it tested whether environmental labels work in a real-world setting where students make actual food choices, not just in a lab. By tracking both what was served and what students reported eating, researchers could see if the labels changed behavior at different levels. The focus groups added important context about why students made their choices. This combination of methods gives a more complete picture than just looking at one type of data alone.

This study has several strengths: it used a randomized design to fairly compare labeled and unlabeled dining halls, it tracked a huge number of actual dining visits (over 1 million), and it included multiple ways of measuring behavior. However, the study only lasted 14 weeks, so we don’t know if effects would be different over longer periods. The survey response rate and specific demographic details aren’t fully reported. The study was conducted at one university in the Midwest, so results might be different at other schools or in different regions. The focus groups were small (23 people total), which limits how much we can generalize their insights.

What the Results Show

When researchers looked at all menu items served, they found that the amount of food served per person decreased in the labeled dining halls compared to the unlabeled ones. This was true for high-emission foods (like meat-heavy dishes), moderate-emission foods, and even low-emission foods. The decrease was bigger in the labeled halls than in the unlabeled halls, suggesting the labels had some effect on what the dining halls served.

However, when researchers looked more carefully at specific food items that were offered in both the labeled and unlabeled dining halls, they found something different. Only the low-emission foods (the most climate-friendly options) showed a clear decrease in the labeled halls compared to the unlabeled halls. The high-emission foods didn’t show this same pattern.

Most importantly, when researchers asked students directly about what they ate through surveys, there were no statistically significant differences between students in the labeled and unlabeled dining halls. Students reported eating roughly the same amounts of different food categories regardless of whether they saw the climate labels. This suggests that while the labels may have influenced what the dining halls chose to serve, they didn’t change what individual students actually decided to eat.

The focus group discussions revealed that students noticed the labels and understood what they meant, but this awareness didn’t necessarily translate into changed eating behavior. Some students mentioned that taste, price, and habit were more important to them than environmental impact when choosing what to eat. The study also found that the overall decline in food service in the labeled halls affected all types of foods, not just the high-emission ones, which suggests the labels may have had a broader effect on dining hall operations or student traffic rather than specifically steering people toward greener choices.

Previous research has shown that health-focused labels on food (like calorie counts or nutritional information) can influence what people choose to eat. This study suggests that environmental labels might work differently than health labels. While health information directly affects personal wellbeing, environmental impact feels more distant and abstract to many people. This finding aligns with other research showing that people often care about environmental issues but struggle to change their behavior based on that concern alone. The results suggest that environmental labels alone may not be as powerful as health-focused labels for changing eating behavior.

The study only lasted 14 weeks, so we don’t know if the effects would continue, increase, or decrease over time. It was conducted at one large Midwestern university, so the results might not apply to other schools, regions, or types of food service settings. The survey only included 799 students, and we don’t know how representative they were of all students at the university. The study didn’t measure whether students actually read or paid attention to the labels, so we can’t be sure they even noticed them. The focus groups were small and may not represent all students’ perspectives. Additionally, the study couldn’t separate the effect of the labels themselves from the effect of the informational materials that accompanied them.

The Bottom Line

Based on this research, climate labels on menus alone appear unlikely to significantly change eating habits (low confidence for individual behavior change). However, they may have modest effects on what dining facilities choose to serve (moderate confidence). If you want to reduce your environmental impact through food choices, you’ll likely need to actively decide to make changes—the labels can provide helpful information, but they probably won’t automatically change your behavior. Combining labels with other strategies (like making low-emission foods cheaper, more visible, or more appealing) would likely be more effective.

This research matters for college administrators and food service directors who want to make dining halls more environmentally friendly. It’s also relevant for anyone interested in climate change and food systems. However, the findings shouldn’t discourage efforts to label foods with environmental information—they just suggest that labels work best as part of a larger strategy. People who are already motivated to reduce their environmental impact may find the labels helpful, even if they don’t change behavior for the general population.

Based on this study, you shouldn’t expect to see major changes in eating habits within weeks of labels appearing. The 10-week study period showed minimal changes in what students actually ate. If you’re trying to use environmental information to change your own food choices, expect it to be a gradual process that requires conscious effort and decision-making, rather than something that happens automatically from seeing labels.

Want to Apply This Research?

  • Track the greenhouse gas emissions of meals you eat for one week, then set a goal to reduce weekly emissions by 10% in the following week. Use the app to log meals and see your environmental impact score change over time.
  • Use the app to identify one high-emission food you eat regularly and find a lower-emission alternative you enjoy. Practice choosing the alternative for one meal per week, then gradually increase the frequency as it becomes more habitual.
  • Set weekly reminders to log your meals and review your environmental impact score. Track not just what you eat, but also your awareness of climate impact—note when you actively choose lower-emission options versus when you eat on autopilot. Over months, you should see both your emissions decrease and your conscious decision-making increase.

This study was conducted at one university and may not apply to all food service settings or populations. The research shows that environmental labels alone have limited impact on individual eating behavior, but this doesn’t mean they’re ineffective as part of a broader strategy. If you have specific dietary needs or health conditions, consult with a healthcare provider or registered dietitian before making significant changes to your diet. This research is informational and should not replace professional nutritional or medical advice.