Climate ChangeNCT05131529
Reshaping Food Choice at University of Michigan
A study testing Taste-focused labels, Carbon impact labels and Changing default menu options in people with Climate Change and Food Preferences, run by University of Michigan at 1 site in United States.
Trial summary
Nearly a quarter of global greenhouse gas emissions originate from agriculture. Consumer demand for food, especially carbon-intensive red meats, largely underlies these emissions. Therefore, reducing consumption of red meat has the potential for transformative impacts on climate change. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 years and olderHealthy volunteers can take part
- Conditions the study is for
- Climate Change, Food Preferences
- What is being tested?
- Taste-focused labels, Carbon impact labels and Changing default menu options
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 3,003 participants
- Where
- 1 siteUnited States
- Study dates
- 30 Aug 2021to 18 Dec 2022
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- None posted in the registry
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 18 years and older
- All sexes
- Healthy volunteers accepted
- Adult, Older adult
Student Survey:
- An individual must have been a frequent diner at one of the six project dining halls during the first three weeks of the academic term
- An individual must have attended only treatment or only control dining halls for 90% or more of their dining hall visits during the first three weeks of the academic term
Student Focus Group:
- Must have participated in the student survey
- We will stratify the sample by selecting respondents whose red meat consumption either increased, decreased or remained the same (based on baseline to endline comparisons of data in the student survey)
Dining Staff Interviews:
- Must have been a non-student member of the Michigan Dining staff at one of the six project dining halls during the relevant intervention period.
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
About this study
Official title: Reshaping Food Choice at University of Michigan Dining Halls to Accelerate Carbon Neutrality
Nearly a quarter of global greenhouse gas emissions originate from agriculture. Consumer demand for food, especially carbon-intensive red meats, largely underlies these emissions. Therefore, reducing consumption of red meat has the potential for transformative impacts on climate change. Our interdisciplinary team of researchers and dining staff aims to determine the carbon impact of evidence-based behavior change interventions to reduce red meat consumption at University of Michigan dining halls. Using an experimental design, we will evaluate the impacts of three "nudge" interventions (i.e., modifying environmental cues and incentives) to reduce red meat consumption in three randomly assigned treatment dining halls vis-à-vis three paired control dining halls. Nudges will include changing default food items and altering food labels. We will: 1) collect data on meals served during each intervention periods to assess the separate and combined effects of the interventions on red meat consumption; 2) conduct e-mail interviews with students to understand treatment effect heterogeneity and sociodemographic determinants of food choice; and, 3) conduct focus group discussions and interviews, respectively, with students and dining staff to assess implementation feasibility. We expect that this research will generate scalable, replicable solutions for reducing greenhouse gas emissions through dietary change at universities and similar institutions, will significantly advance the food choice literature, and will influence sustainability strategies at university dining operations nationally given the proposed team's close partnership with regional and national dining programs.
- Conditions
- Climate Change, Food Preferences
- Being tested
- Taste-focused labels, Carbon impact labels, Changing default menu options
- Medical subject headings
- Food Preferences
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Taste-focused labelsOther
We will implement taste-focused labels on plant-based dishes in each of the 3 treatment dining halls to re-brand dishes with attributes focused on the taste of the dish (e.g., renaming a "Squash with Ginger" side to "Aromatic Thai Curry Kabocha Squash With Zesty Ginger").
Carbon impact labelsOther
We will add labels next to all dishes served in treatment dining halls that indicate whether production of the ingredients in the dish contribute a high, moderate or low amount of carbon emissions. These labels will be absent from the same dishes served in control dining halls. Labels will be added to point-of-service signs, digital menu boards, and menu information on a mobile app.
Changing default menu optionsOther
We will make red meat items an opt-in (as opposed to opt-out) item across all meal stations in treatment dining halls. All menu stations will exclude red meat by default, and dining hall patrons will have to request the addition of red meat to meals. At control dining halls, red meat items will be provided by default at meal stations as normal.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Control | No intervention | The 3 dining halls allocated to this arm will receive none of the three interventions during the 3 semesters of the project. |
| Treatment | Experimental | The 3 dining halls allocated to this arm will receive one intervention during each of the 3 semesters of the project (only one intervention per semester). Receives: Other: Taste-focused labels; Other: Carbon impact labels; Other: Changing default menu options |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
The difference in the change in the average amount of red meat served in treatment vs. control dining halls from the pre-intervention to intervention period based on service data from dining hall operations staff
We will assess the amount of red meat served across project dining halls from the the pre-intervention to the intervention period using "post-cost" data collected by operations staff (i.e., the amount of each dish prepared prior to the start of a meal period as well as the amount of each dish remaining at the end of the meal period with units of measure standardized to kg. We will assess the average weight of red meat served in each dining hall during the pre-intervention baseline period compared to the average weight of red meat served in each dining hall during the intervention period. We will do a difference-in-difference analysis to identify whether the change in the amount of red meat served at treatment vs. control dining halls differed during this time period. Difference-in-difference analyses examine the difference in the change in an outcome between a treatment and control group.
Measured: 11 week intervention period (during each of 3 academic semesters)
The difference in the change in the average amount of red meat purchased by dining halls in treatment vs. control dining halls from the pre-intervention to intervention period
We will assess the average amount of red meat purchased by each of the 6 project dining halls during the pre-intervention period and during the intervention period.
We will do a difference-in-difference analysis to identify whether the change in the amount of red meat purchased at treatment vs. control dining halls differed during these time periods.
Measured: 11 week intervention period (during each of 3 academic semesters)
The difference in the change in the average amount of red meat consumed in treatment vs. control dining halls from the pre-intervention to intervention period based on 30-day food frequency questionnaire intake
We will assess the amount of red meat consumed by a subsample of dining hall patrons (n = 1,000) at each of the 6 project dining halls from the start to the end of each intervention period. This will be done through a self-administered food frequency questionnaire that asks respondents to report their frequency of consumption of red meat items in the previous 30 days.
We will do a difference-in-difference analysis to identify whether the change in the amount of red meat consumed by respondents who frequently patron treatment vs. control dining halls differed during this time period.
Measured: 11 week intervention period (during each of 3 academic semesters)
Secondary outcomes (2)
The change in the average amount of red meat served at meal stations in treatment vs. control dining halls from the pre-intervention to intervention period based on service data from dining hall operations staff
We will assess the average amount of red meat served in each of the 6 project dining halls during the pre-intervention and the intervention periods. We will assess the difference in this amount of red meat served within a single dining hall to assess if and how this amount changed. Data on red meat served in each dining hall will begin 4 weeks before the start of each intervention period, thereby allowing us to compare the amount of red meat served before interventions begin to red meat served thereafter.
We will assess the average weight of red meat served in each dining hall during the pre-intervention baseline period compared to the average weight of red meat served in each dining hall during the intervention period.
Measured: 15 weeks (4 week baseline period + 11 week intervention period (during each of 3 academic semesters)
The change in the average amount of red meat purchased by dining halls in treatment vs. control dining halls from the pre-intervention to intervention period
We will assess the amount of red meat purchased in each of the 6 project dining halls during the pre-intervention and the intervention periods. We will assess the difference in this amount of red meat purchased within a single dining hall to assess if and how this amount changed. Data on red meat purchased in each dining hall will begin 4 weeks before the start of each intervention period, thereby allowing us to compare the amount of red meat purchased before interventions begin to red meat purchased thereafter.
Measured: 15 weeks (4 week baseline period + 11 week intervention period (during each of 3 academic semesters)
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted23 Nov 2021
- Study start30 Aug 2021
- Primary completion18 Dec 2022
- Study completion18 Dec 2022
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Other trials for Climate ChangeStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- More trials run by University of MichiganThe sponsor's other registered studies.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase N/A
- Primary purpose
- Prevention
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Sequential
- Model description
- We will carry out the proposed project within six of the University of Michigan's MDining's nine residential dining halls on the Ann Arbor campus. Using a cluster-randomized controlled trial, we will create three matched pairs among the six dining halls based on the size of each facility. One dining hall from each of the pairs will be randomly assigned to a treatment and control group, respectively. Participants will receive interventions based on which dining halls they visit regularly and most often.
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Enrolment
- 3,003 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- University of Michigan
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- Graham Sustainability Institute of the University of Michigan
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, Andrew Jones, University of Michigan
- Investigators
- Andrew D Jones, PhD, Principal investigator, University of Michigan
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT05131529
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- HUM00198619
- Status last verified
- Jan 2023
- First submitted
- 1 Nov 2021
- Last updated
- 12 Jan 2023
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- No
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 12 Jan 2023. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Reshaping Food Choice at University of Michigan Dining Halls to Accelerate Carbon Neutrality
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT05131529
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- HUM00198619
- Conditions
- Climate Change, Food Preferences
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 3,003 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- University of MichiganUniversity, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- Graham Sustainability Institute of the University of Michigan
- Study start
- 30 Aug 2021 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 18 Dec 2022 (actual)
- Study completion
- 18 Dec 2022 (actual)
- First posted
- 23 Nov 2021 (actual)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
Nearly a quarter of global greenhouse gas emissions originate from agriculture. Consumer demand for food, especially carbon-intensive red meats, largely underlies these emissions. Therefore, reducing consumption of red meat has the potential for transformative impacts on climate change. Our interdisciplinary team of researchers and dining staff aims to determine the carbon impact of evidence-based behavior change interventions to reduce red meat consumption at University of Michigan dining halls. Using an experimental design, we will evaluate the impacts of three "nudge" interventions (i.e., modifying environmental cues and incentives) to reduce red meat consumption in three randomly assigned treatment dining halls vis-à-vis three paired control dining halls. Nudges will include changing default food items and altering food labels. We will: 1) collect data on meals served during each intervention periods to assess the separate and combined effects of the interventions on red meat consumption; 2) conduct e-mail interviews with students to understand treatment effect heterogeneity and sociodemographic determinants of food choice; and, 3) conduct focus group discussions and interviews, respectively, with students and dining staff to assess implementation feasibility. We expect that this research will generate scalable, replicable solutions for reducing greenhouse gas emissions through dietary change at universities and similar institutions, will significantly advance the food choice literature, and will influence sustainability strategies at university dining operations nationally given the proposed team's close partnership with regional and national dining programs.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Prevention
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Sequential
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Number of arms
- 2
- Model description
- We will carry out the proposed project within six of the University of Michigan's MDining's nine residential dining halls on the Ann Arbor campus. Using a cluster-randomized controlled trial, we will create three matched pairs among the six dining halls based on the size of each facility. One dining hall from each of the pairs will be randomly assigned to a treatment and control group, respectively. Participants will receive interventions based on which dining halls they visit regularly and most often.
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Control | No intervention | –The 3 dining halls allocated to this arm will receive none of the three interventions during the 3 semesters of the project. |
| Treatment | Experimental | Other: Taste-focused labels, Other: Carbon impact labels, Other: Changing default menu optionsThe 3 dining halls allocated to this arm will receive one intervention during each of the 3 semesters of the project (only one intervention per semester). |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 years and older
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| Taste-focused labelsWe will implement taste-focused labels on plant-based dishes in each of the 3 treatment dining halls to re-brand dishes with attributes focused on the taste of the dish (e.g., renaming a "Squash with Ginger" side to "Aromatic Thai Curry Kabocha Squash With Zesty Ginger"). | Other | Treatment |
| Carbon impact labelsWe will add labels next to all dishes served in treatment dining halls that indicate whether production of the ingredients in the dish contribute a high, moderate or low amount of carbon emissions. These labels will be absent from the same dishes served in control dining halls. Labels will be added to point-of-service signs, digital menu boards, and menu information on a mobile app. | Other | Treatment |
| Changing default menu optionsWe will make red meat items an opt-in (as opposed to opt-out) item across all meal stations in treatment dining halls. All menu stations will exclude red meat by default, and dining hall patrons will have to request the addition of red meat to meals. At control dining halls, red meat items will be provided by default at meal stations as normal. | Other | Treatment |
Primary outcome
The difference in the change in the average amount of red meat served in treatment vs. control dining halls from the pre-intervention to intervention period based on service data from dining hall operations staff
Time frame: 11 week intervention period (during each of 3 academic semesters)
We will assess the amount of red meat served across project dining halls from the the pre-intervention to the intervention period using "post-cost" data collected by operations staff (i.e., the amount of each dish prepared prior to the start of a meal period as well as the amount of each dish remaining at the end of the meal period with units of measure standardized to kg. We will assess the average weight of red meat served in each dining hall during the pre-intervention baseline period compared to the average weight of red meat served in each dining hall during the intervention period. We will do a difference-in-difference analysis to identify whether the change in the amount of red meat served at treatment vs. control dining halls differed during this time period. Difference-in-difference analyses examine the difference in the change in an outcome between a treatment and control group.
The difference in the change in the average amount of red meat purchased by dining halls in treatment vs. control dining halls from the pre-intervention to intervention period
Time frame: 11 week intervention period (during each of 3 academic semesters)
We will assess the average amount of red meat purchased by each of the 6 project dining halls during the pre-intervention period and during the intervention period. We will do a difference-in-difference analysis to identify whether the change in the amount of red meat purchased at treatment vs. control dining halls differed during these time periods.
The difference in the change in the average amount of red meat consumed in treatment vs. control dining halls from the pre-intervention to intervention period based on 30-day food frequency questionnaire intake
Time frame: 11 week intervention period (during each of 3 academic semesters)
We will assess the amount of red meat consumed by a subsample of dining hall patrons (n = 1,000) at each of the 6 project dining halls from the start to the end of each intervention period. This will be done through a self-administered food frequency questionnaire that asks respondents to report their frequency of consumption of red meat items in the previous 30 days. We will do a difference-in-difference analysis to identify whether the change in the amount of red meat consumed by respondents who frequently patron treatment vs. control dining halls differed during this time period.
2 secondary outcomes
The change in the average amount of red meat served at meal stations in treatment vs. control dining halls from the pre-intervention to intervention period based on service data from dining hall operations staff
Time frame: 15 weeks (4 week baseline period + 11 week intervention period (during each of 3 academic semesters)
The change in the average amount of red meat purchased by dining halls in treatment vs. control dining halls from the pre-intervention to intervention period
Time frame: 15 weeks (4 week baseline period + 11 week intervention period (during each of 3 academic semesters)
Results and safety
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 12 Jan 2023.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: No
Related trials for Climate Change
Recruiting
Climate-Responsive Nutrition, WASH, and Heat Counselling for Maternal and Child Health in Sindh, Pakistan
Maternal Nutrition, Child Nutrition
Recruiting
Environmental Sustainability-Focused Service-Learning for Nursing Students
Sustainable Consumption Behavior, Sustainability Attitudes
Not yet recruiting
Podcast-supported Education on Climate Change Awareness, Anxiety, and Health Literacy Levels in Nursing Students
Podcast, Nursing Students
Not yet recruiting
A Climate Change Education Program for 7th and 8th Grade Students in Istanbul Schools: Does It Improve Climate Knowledge and Health-Protective Behaviors?
Climate Change, Adolescent
Recruiting
Promoting Interventions for Climate Change to Upscale Resilience in District Badin
Climate Change and Health, Disaster Preparedness
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
Andrew D Jones, PhD principal investigator
University of Michigan
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing Taste-focused labels, Carbon impact labels and Changing default menu options in people with Climate Change and Food Preferences, run by University of Michigan at 1 site in United States.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 12 Jan 2023. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 1 site in United States. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
The difference in the change in the average amount of red meat served in treatment vs. control dining halls from the pre-intervention to intervention period based on service data from dining hall operations staff (time frame: 11 week intervention period (during each of 3 academic semesters)). The study lists 3 primary outcomes in all. It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 12 Jan 2023.