Research shows that adding climate impact labels to restaurant menus—especially letter grades (A through F) with a visual scale—reduces how often people order high-pollution foods by 5-8%. A 2025 randomized controlled trial of 10,342 American adults found that menus with climate grades plus scales reduced meal pollution by about 13% compared to menus without labels, while also helping people choose items with less saturated fat.
A major study of over 10,000 Americans tested whether adding climate impact labels to fast food menus would help people make better food choices. Researchers found that when menus showed how much pollution each food item causes—especially using letter grades like A, B, C, D, E, or F—people were significantly less likely to order high-pollution foods. The study also found that these labels helped people choose items with less saturated fat. According to Gram Research analysis, climate labels on menus could be a simple way to help both people’s health and the planet at the same time.
Key Statistics
A 2025 randomized controlled trial of 10,342 US adults found that climate grade labels with visual scales reduced the likelihood of selecting high-pollution foods from 53% to 46%, a 7-percentage-point decrease compared to menus without labels.
According to a 2025 study published in JAMA Network Open, menus displaying climate grades plus scales reduced the average pollution from meal orders to 16.3 kilograms of CO2 equivalent, compared to 18.8 kilograms in the control group—a 13% reduction.
A 2025 randomized trial of over 10,000 participants found that climate grade plus scale labels helped people choose items with significantly less saturated fat (11.8 grams versus 12.6 grams in the control group).
Research reviewed by Gram found that warning labels and high climate impact labels reduced high-pollution food selection to 45-47%, compared to 53% in the control condition, across a study of 10,342 American adults in 2025.
The Quick Take
- What they studied: Whether adding labels to fast food menus that show how much pollution each food creates would help people choose healthier, more environmentally friendly meals.
- Who participated: 10,342 American adults aged 18 and older participated in the online study. The average age was 46 years old, and about 53% were women. Participants ordered from a fake fast food menu on their computers.
- Key finding: When menus showed climate impact using letter grades (A through F) or warning labels, people were 5-8% less likely to pick high-pollution foods compared to menus with no labels. The climate grade with a scale showing all options worked best, reducing the pollution from meals by about 13%.
- What it means for you: If restaurants start using climate labels on their menus, you might naturally choose foods that are better for both your health and the environment without having to think too hard about it. However, this was tested online with fake menus, so real-world results in actual restaurants might be different.
The Research Details
Researchers conducted a randomized controlled trial, which is considered the gold standard for testing whether something actually works. Between December 2024 and February 2025, they recruited over 10,000 American adults to participate online. Each participant was randomly assigned to see one of six different menu label versions: no label (control group), a label showing climate pollution as a dollar cost, a letter grade (A-F), a letter grade with a visual scale, a simple warning label, or a warning label with the word “high” emphasized.
Participants ordered food from a realistic fast food menu that matched a major US chain. The researchers then measured two main things: whether people picked high-pollution foods and how much total pollution their meal choices created. They also looked at whether the labels affected the nutritional quality of food choices, including saturated fat content.
The study was carefully controlled, meaning the only difference between groups was the type of label they saw. This design helps researchers figure out whether the labels actually caused the differences in food choices, rather than other factors being responsible.
A randomized controlled trial is the strongest type of study for proving that something actually causes a change in behavior. Because participants were randomly assigned to different label types, researchers could be confident that any differences in food choices were due to the labels themselves, not because different types of people chose different groups. This approach is much more reliable than just observing what people naturally do.
This study has several strengths: it included over 10,000 participants, which is a large sample size that makes results more reliable; it was published in JAMA Network Open, a highly respected medical journal; participants were randomly assigned to groups, which reduces bias; and the study was pre-registered on ClinicalTrials.gov, meaning the researchers planned their analysis before collecting data. However, the study used an online simulation rather than a real restaurant, so people might behave differently when actually ordering food in person. Additionally, the study only tested one type of fast food menu, so results might not apply to all restaurants or all types of food.
What the Results Show
The study found that climate labels significantly reduced how often people chose high-pollution foods. In the control group (no labels), 53% of people picked high-pollution items. When climate grades were shown, only 48% picked high-pollution items. When climate grades were shown with a visual scale, only 46% picked high-pollution items. Warning labels also worked, with 45-47% of people picking high-pollution items depending on the exact warning style.
The climate grade plus scale label was the most effective at reducing actual pollution from meals. People in this group ordered meals that produced an average of 16.3 kilograms of carbon dioxide equivalent, compared to 18.8 kilograms in the control group—a reduction of about 13%. The high climate impact label also worked, reducing pollution to 16.9 kilograms.
For nutrition, the climate grade plus scale label helped people choose items with less saturated fat (11.8 grams versus 12.6 grams in the control group). However, overall nutrition scores didn’t differ significantly between label types. Interestingly, when people were asked which label would most discourage them from picking high-pollution foods, they said the environmental cost label (showing pollution as a dollar amount) seemed most discouraging, even though it didn’t actually change their behavior as much as the grade-based labels.
The study examined several other outcomes beyond the main findings. Participants’ overall nutrition quality scores (measured by the Nutrient Profile Index) did not significantly differ between label conditions, suggesting that while climate labels helped reduce pollution, they didn’t dramatically improve overall nutritional quality. The reduction in saturated fat with the climate grade plus scale label was the most notable nutrition improvement. The study also found that people’s perceptions of labels didn’t always match their actual behavior—people thought the dollar-cost label was most effective at discouraging high-pollution choices, but the grade-based labels actually worked better in practice.
This research builds on earlier studies suggesting that environmental labels can influence food choices. Previous research has shown that labels using simple visual systems (like grades or colors) tend to work better than complex information for changing behavior. This study confirms that finding and shows it applies specifically to climate impact labels. The finding that letter grades work better than dollar amounts is somewhat surprising and suggests that people may not fully understand the environmental cost of food when it’s expressed as money. The study also adds new evidence that climate labels can improve some aspects of nutrition (like saturated fat) while reducing environmental impact.
This study has important limitations to consider. First, it was conducted online using a simulated fast food menu, not in actual restaurants where people make real purchases. People might behave differently when they’re actually hungry, paying with their own money, or influenced by friends and family. Second, the study only tested menus from one type of fast food restaurant, so results might not apply to other restaurants, grocery stores, or different types of cuisine. Third, the study only measured immediate food choices, not whether people’s eating habits changed over time. Fourth, the study didn’t test how labels work in combination with other strategies, like price changes or availability changes. Finally, the study was conducted in the United States with English-language menus, so results might not apply to other countries or languages.
The Bottom Line
Based on this research, restaurants could consider adding climate impact labels to their menus, particularly using letter grades (A-F) with a visual scale showing all possible grades. This approach appears to reduce both environmental pollution from meals and saturated fat content. The evidence is moderately strong for this recommendation, though real-world testing in actual restaurants is still needed. People interested in reducing their environmental impact could look for restaurants that provide climate information and use that information to guide their choices. However, these findings should not be considered definitive guidance for personal diet changes until the approach is tested in real restaurant settings.
Restaurant owners and food service companies should care about this research because it shows a simple way to help customers make more environmentally friendly choices without forcing anyone to do anything. Policymakers interested in climate change should care because food systems account for about one-third of global greenhouse gas emissions, and menu labels could be an easy policy tool. People concerned about climate change or their health should care because it shows that small changes in how information is presented can help them make better choices. Environmental advocates should care because it provides evidence that labeling can work. However, people who are not concerned about environmental impact may not find this relevant to their food choices.
Based on this study, the effects of climate labels on food choices appear to happen immediately—people made different choices the first time they saw the labels. However, it’s unclear whether these changes would last over weeks or months if someone regularly ate at restaurants with these labels. The study also doesn’t tell us how long it would take for widespread use of climate labels to have a meaningful impact on overall food system emissions. Real-world testing would be needed to understand long-term effects.
Frequently Asked Questions
Do climate labels on restaurant menus actually change what people order?
Yes. A 2025 study of 10,342 adults found that climate grade labels reduced high-pollution food choices by 5-8%. The most effective label type—a letter grade with a visual scale—reduced meal pollution by about 13% compared to menus without labels.
What type of climate label works best for changing food choices?
Letter grades (A through F) with a visual scale showing all possible grades worked best in the study. This design reduced high-pollution food selection to 46% compared to 53% without labels, and also helped people choose items with less saturated fat.
Does showing climate pollution as a dollar cost help people make better choices?
Not significantly. Although people said the dollar-cost label seemed most discouraging, it didn’t actually change their food choices as much as letter grades did. Letter grades appear more effective at influencing real behavior.
Will climate labels improve the overall nutrition of restaurant meals?
Partially. The study found that climate labels helped reduce saturated fat in some cases but didn’t significantly improve overall nutrition scores. Climate labels appear most effective at reducing environmental impact rather than improving all aspects of nutrition.
Would climate labels work the same way in real restaurants as they did in this study?
Possibly, but it’s unclear. This study used an online simulation with a fake menu, not actual restaurants. Real-world testing is needed to confirm whether people would make the same choices when actually ordering food in person with their own money.
Want to Apply This Research?
- Track the carbon footprint of your weekly meals by logging what you eat and noting which items have climate labels when available. Measure your progress by calculating total weekly CO2 equivalent emissions and aim to reduce it by 10-15% over a month.
- When ordering from restaurants that display climate impact labels, use the letter grades or warning labels to guide your choices. Start by trying one meal per week where you pick an item with a lower climate grade, then gradually increase this habit.
- Create a simple weekly log noting how many times you chose lower-climate-impact options and estimate the total pollution reduction. Compare your choices over monthly periods to see if climate-conscious ordering becomes easier and more automatic over time.
This research was conducted in an online simulation using a single fast food menu and may not reflect real-world restaurant behavior or apply to all food types and establishments. The study shows associations between label types and food choices but was conducted over a short time period. Before making significant dietary changes based on climate impact, consult with a healthcare provider or registered dietitian, especially if you have specific health conditions or nutritional needs. This information is for educational purposes and should not replace professional medical or nutritional advice.
This research translation is published by Gram Research, the science division of Gram, an AI-powered nutrition tracking app.