Elsevier

Journal of Cleaner Production

Volume 368, 25 September 2022, 133155
Journal of Cleaner Production

A conceptual framework for understanding the environmental impacts of ultra-processed foods and implications for sustainable food systems

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.133155Get rights and content

Highlights

  • Ultra-processed food production uses significant finite environmental resources.

  • Ultra-processed foods are responsible for significant environmental degradation.

  • Environmental impacts are driven by intense production methods & overconsumption.

  • Environmental impacts are avoidable; ultra-processed foods are not nutritionally essential.

  • The framework developed can inform food policies and future research.

Abstract

Minimising environmental impacts and prioritising the production of nutritious foods are essential qualities of a sustainable food system. Ultra-processed foods (UFPs) are potentially counterproductive to these objectives. This review aims to summarise the magnitude and types of environmental impacts resulting from each stage of the UPF supply chain and to develop a conceptual framework to display these impacts. It also aims to identify the terms used to describe UPFs in the sustainability literature, and the methods used to measure the associated environmental impacts. A narrative review approach with a systematic search strategy was used. Fifty-two studies were included that either described or quantified the environmental impacts of UPFs. This review found that UPFs are responsible for significant diet-related environmental impacts. Included studies reported that UPFs accounted for between 17 and 39% of total diet-related energy use, 36–45% of total diet-related biodiversity loss, up to one-third of total diet-related greenhouse gas emissions, land use and food waste and up to one-quarter of total diet-related water-use among adults in a range of high-income countries. These results varied depending on the scope of the term used to describe UPFs, stages of the lifecycle included in the analyses and country. Studies also identified that UPF production and consumption has impacts on land degradation, herbicide use, eutrophication and packaging use, although these impacts were not quantified in relation to dietary contribution. The findings highlight that environmental degradation associated with UPFs is of significant concern due to the substantial resources used in the production and processing of such products, and also because UPFs are superfluous to basic human needs. The conceptual framework and findings presented can be used to inform food policy and dietary guideline development, as well as provide recommendations for future research.

Introduction

Food system transformation offers a powerful opportunity to collectively address all components of sustainability, namely the economic, social, environmental and health impacts of food production and consumption(FAO, 2018). The global food system is one of the largest drivers of global environmental change(Tilman and Clark, 2014; Willett et al., 2019) but it is failing to provide adequate nutrition for a large proportion of the world's population(FAO et al., 2019).

Sustainable food systems provide the foundation for sustainable diets by enabling access to healthy and sustainable foods. The FAO description of sustainable healthy diets encourages consumption of wholefoods, such as fruit, vegetables and wholegrains(FAO and WHO, 2019). The guidelines also state that healthy and sustainable diets can include moderate amounts of eggs, dairy, poultry and fish; and small amounts of red meatwhile restricting highly processed food and drink products(FAO and WHO, 2019), also known as ultra-processed foods (UPFs). UPFs are defined as ‘formulations of ingredients, mostly of exclusive industrial use, that result from a series of industrial processes’ and contain little or no whole foods(Monteiro et al., 2019).

Evidence for the environmental and health benefits of reducing consumption of animal-based products is well-established(Godfray et al., 2018). In contrast, research on the environmental impact of UPFs is limited. While processing is key to food safety and security(Augustin et al., 2016), there is a growing concern that UPFs are processed beyond what is necessary for food safety, with adverse impacts on human health(Elizabeth et al., 2020), and probable adverse environmental impacts(Fardet and Rock, 2020).

The manufacture and consumption of UPFs are rising(Baker et al., 2020) and existing literature has reported that this can impact the social(Monteiro et al., 2018), health(Elizabeth et al., 2020) and economic(Oxfam, 2013) dimensions of sustainability. UPFs can change the social aspect of eating by replacing shared experiences relating to acquiring, preparing, cooking and eating local and traditional foods with eating ready-made ubiquitous foods alone, and may encourage mindless eating(Monteiro et al., 2018). These changes in eating have also been reported to redirect finances away from the smallholder production of unprocessed and minimally processed foods to ready-to-eat UPFs sold by large transnational corporations (Baker et al., 2020; Hadjikakou and Wiedmann, 2017; Monteiro et al., 2018). This can contribute to economic inequalities as some large trans-national corporations responsible for UPF production rely on underpaid food system workers in poor conditions, resulting in an uneven distribution of wealth(Oxfam, 2013). In high-income countries, UPFs are disproportionately consumed by lower-socioeconomic groups, which may exacerbate existing economic, health and social inequalities(Baker et al., 2020; Fardet and Rock, 2020).

UPFs utilise persuasive marketing and are usually mass-produced using inexpensive ingredients to enable overconsumption through availability, hyper-palatability, poor satiety and displacing wholefoods in diets(Monteiro et al., 2018). A growing body of evidence reports that UPF consumption is associated with increased risk of overweight and obesity, cardiovascular diseases, type-2 diabetes, metabolic syndrome, irritable bowel syndrome, cancer, depression, and all-cause mortality, among others(Elizabeth et al., 2020; Lane et al., 2021). It is plausible that this is caused by UPFs poor nutrient composition and degraded food matrices(Fardet, 2016).

Despite the growing body of evidence for the health, social and economic impacts of UPFs, their environmental impacts remain poorly described and quantified within the scientific literature. Four commentaries/syntheses(Clark et al., 2020; Monteiro et al., 2018; Scott, 2018; Seferidi et al., 2020) and a narrative-style review(Fardet and Rock, 2020) have conceptually explored aspects of the environmental impact of UPFs. These studies have proposed that UPF production can impact the environment through reliance on practices such as large-scale monoculture farming, deforestation and biodiversity loss(Monteiro et al., 2018). They suggest that UPF manufacturing and distribution require considerable energy inputs and thus contribute to greenhouse gas emissions, and other waste(Seferidi et al., 2020). Finally, the studies have noted that UPFs rely on large multinational supply chains which are likely to result in transport, waste and packaging-related environmental degradation(Seferidi et al., 2020). However, existing commentaries, syntheses and reviews are not comprehensive; they are based on limited studies, do not present findings according to the lifecycle of products throughout the food system and have not considered the implications of different terms, which encompass foods that can be considered UPFs (such as many discretionary foods and foods high in fat, salt and sugar), used to classify such foods on study results.

A detailed understanding of the environmental impacts of UPFs is key to informing food policies and dietary guidance. This is pertinent because UPFs are frequently excluded from global and national guidelines and policy documents on sustainable food systems and diets. For example, the EAT-Lancet report, one of the most recognised reference documents on sustainable diets, does not mention UPFs(Willett et al., 2019), nor does the major FAO report on the biodiversity impacts of food and agriculture(FAO, 2019). The few policy activities which consider the environmental sustainability of UPFs are based on conceptual evidence, rather than evidence from empirical studies. Thus, better understanding the empirical evidence on this topic is important to inform future food policies and dietary guidelines for sustainable food systems.

This review aims to determine the types of environmental impacts resulting from each stage of UPF production, and the magnitude of these impacts in the context of dietary consumption patterns. In addition, the review summarises methods used to measure the environmental impacts of UPFs, and the terms and definitions used to describe UPFs in environmental sustainability research. While it was not the focus of this paper, impacts on social, health and economic sustainability which were measured or described in the included studies are also discussed.

Section snippets

Methods

A narrative review approach was adopted to capture the complex themes and diverse study methodologies within this field of research(Popay et al., 2006). Rigour was maintained by using a systematic search strategy and structured results tables. The review followed four steps: 1) a systematic search for literature, 2) study screening, 3) data extraction, 4) data analysis and synthesis.

A conceptual framework of the environmental impacts of UPFs

This section summarises the environmental impacts of UPFs as described or measured in the included studies. An overview of the results is also presented in the conceptual framework (Fig. 2) which describes the sustainability implications of UPFs throughout the food supply chain. Table 1, Table 2, Table 3, Table 4, Table 5 display the key results for each environmental issue addressed in the included studies. Further details for each study can be found in Appendix B. While this review focused on

Discussion

This review aimed to summarise evidence on the environmental impacts of UPFs, including the terms and definitions used to describe UPFs in environmental sustainability research and methods used to measure the environmental impact of UPFs. The foods included in this review either met the criteria to be classified as a UPF under the NOVA classification scheme or the context in which they were used was consistent with how UPFs are defined(Monteiro et al., 2019). The findings of the review can be

Conclusion

Ultra-processed foods are fundamentally unsustainable products; they have been associated with poor health and social outcomes and require finite environmental resources for their production. This review developed a novel framework to visualise and track the environmental impacts of UPFs at key stages throughout the food system.

The review also reported the magnitude of UPF-related impacts and found that UPFs are responsible for significant diet-related energy, greenhouse gas emissions, land

Authorship

Kim Anastasiou: Conceptualisation, Methodology, Study screening, Writing- Original Draft. Phillip Baker, Michalis Hadjikakou, Gilly Hendrie, Mark Lawrence: Conceptualisation, Methodology, Writing- Review & Editing.

Declaration of competing interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

References (104)

  • M. Kissinger

    International trade related food miles – the case of Canada

    Food Pol.

    (2012)
  • M. Li et al.

    Towards meaningful consumption-based planetary boundary indicators: the phosphorus exceedance footprint

    Global Environ. Change

    (2019)
  • L.J. Mallinson et al.

    Attitudes and behaviour towards convenience food and food waste in the United Kingdom

    Appetite

    (2016)
  • G. Masset et al.

    Identifying sustainable foods: the relationship between environmental impact, nutritional quality, and prices of foods representative of the French diet

    J. Acad. Nutr. Diet.

    (2014)
  • G. Masset et al.

    Reducing energy intake and energy density for a sustainable diet: a study based on self-selected diets in French adults

    Am. J. Clin. Nutr.

    (2014)
  • E. Mertens et al.

    Dietary choices and environmental impact in four European countries

    J. Clean. Prod.

    (2019)
  • B. Notarnicola et al.

    Environmental impacts of food consumption in Europe

    J. Clean. Prod.

    (2017)
  • C.M.d. Passos et al.

    Association between the price of ultra-processed foods and obesity in Brazil

    Nutr. Metabol. Cardiovasc. Dis.

    (2020)
  • B.M. Popkin et al.

    Towards unified and impactful policies to reduce ultra-processed food consumption and promote healthier eating. The lancet

    Diabetes Endocrinol.

    (2021)
  • C.J. Reynolds et al.

    Evaluation of the environmental impact of weekly food consumption in different socio-economic households in Australia using environmentally extended input–output analysis

    Ecol. Econ.

    (2015)
  • P. Seferidi et al.

    The neglected environmental impacts of ultra-processed foods

    Lancet Planet. Health

    (2020)
  • G. Song et al.

    Packaging waste from food delivery in China's mega cities

    Resour. Conserv. Recycl.

    (2018)
  • C. van Dooren et al.

    Exploring dietary guidelines based on ecological and nutritional values: a comparison of six dietary patterns

    Food Pol.

    (2014)
  • F. Vieux et al.

    Greenhouse gas emissions of self-selected individual diets in France: changing the diet structure or consuming less?

    Ecol. Econ.

    (2012)
  • F. Vieux et al.

    High nutritional quality is not associated with low greenhouse gas emissions in self-selected diets of French adults

    Am. J. Clin. Nutr.

    (2013)
  • F. Vieux et al.

    More sustainable European diets based on self-selection do not require exclusion of entire categories of food

    J. Clean. Prod.

    (2020)
  • A. Wallén et al.

    Does the Swedish consumer's choice of food influence greenhouse gas emissions?

    Environ. Sci. Pol.

    (2004)
  • A. Alabi et al.

    Public and environmental health effects of plastic wastes disposal: a review

    J. Toxicol. Risk Assess.

    (2019)
  • D. Amienyo et al.

    Life cycle environmental impacts of carbonated soft drinks

    Int. J. Life Cycle Assess.

    (2013)
  • E. Archer et al.

    Validity of U.S. Nutritional surveillance: national health and nutrition examination survey caloric energy intake data, 1971–2010

    PLoS One

    (2013)
  • M.A. Augustin et al.

    Role of food processing in food and nutrition security

    Trends Food Sci. Technol.

    (2016)
  • P. Baker et al.

    Ultra‐processed foods and the nutrition transition: global, regional and national trends, food systems transformations and political economy drivers

    Obes. Rev.

    (2020)
  • D. Blair et al.

    Luxus consumption: wasting food resources through overeating

    Agric. Hum. Val.

    (2006)
  • H. Canada

    Canada's Dietary Guidelines for Health Professionals and Policy Makers

    (2019)
  • A. Chamas et al.

    Degradation rates of plastics in the environment

    ACS Sustain. Chem. Eng.

    (2020)
  • M.A. Clark et al.

    Multiple health and environmental impacts of foods

    Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

    (2019)
  • M. Clark et al.

    The role of healthy diets in environmentally sustainable food systems

    Food Nutr. Bull.

    (2020)
  • K.A. Cooper et al.

    Nutrition in the bin: a nutritional and environmental assessment of food wasted in the UK

    Front. Nutr.

    (2018)
  • Corporate McDonalds

    Packaging & waste

  • L. Elizabeth et al.

    Ultra-processed foods and health outcomes: a narrative review

    Nutrients

    (2020)
  • European Environmental Agency

    Waste - state and impacts (Finland)

  • FAO

    Sustainable Food Systems: Concept and Framework

    (2018)
  • FAO
  • FAO

    Food loss and food waste

  • FAO et al.

    Sustainable Healthy Diets

    (2019)
  • FAO et al.

    The State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World 2019. Safeguarding against Economic Slowdowns and Downturns

    (2019)
  • A. Fardet

    Minimally processed foods are more satiating and less hyperglycemic than ultra-processed foods: a preliminary study with 98 ready-to-eat foods

    Food Funct.

    (2016)
  • A. Fardet et al.

    Ultra-processed foods and food system sustainability: what are the links?

    Sustainability

    (2020)
  • P.J. Gerber et al.

    Tackling Climate Change through Livestock: a Global Assessment of Emissions and Mitigation Opportunities

    (2013)
  • H.C.J. Godfray et al.

    Meat consumption, health, and the environment

    Science

    (2018)
  • Cited by (0)

    View full text