K. Anastasiou, P. Baker, M. Hadjikakou, G.A. Hendrie, M. Lawrence. A conceptual framework for understanding the environmental impacts of ultra-processed foods and implications for sustainable food systems. Journal of Cleaner Production. Volume 368, 2022, 133155, ISSN 0959-6526, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.133155 (paywall).
Relevant to:
Dietitians interested in understanding the environmental impacts of UPFs.
Question:
Research aim: 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
Bottom line for nutrition practice:
- 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.
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.
Details of results:

From a resource-use perspective, UPFs are not a necessary component of diets and therefore environmental impacts are avoidable. Environmental impacts from UPFs occur across the entire supply chain. These impacts range in magnitude, but research on Australian discretionary food consumption indicates that they are significant; approximately one-third of diet-related energy, greenhouse gas emissions, land use, and water use was driven by the production of discretionary foods in Australia.
UPFs reliance on low-cost, high-yield commodities is a driver of diet-related greenhouse gas emissions and biodiversity loss, intensive processing technologies is a driver of diet-related energy use and reliance on packaging drives plastic pollution.
Meat-based UPFs appear to be significant drivers of UPF-related greenhouse gas emissions. Plant-based UPFs also contribute to greenhouse gas emissions but their impacts on biodiversity and deforestation are perhaps more concerning.
Of additional interest:
The ways in which foods were classified in the original research articles influenced study findings. This highlights the importance of considering the most relevant food classification system, and the potential impacts of the classification on the findings. Specifically, some outcomes, such as greenhouse gas emissions and land use, appeared to be driven by whether or not studies included processed meats in their ‘unhealthy food’ category.None
Conflict of interest/ Funding:
none
External relevant links:
Ultra-processed foods should be central to global food systems dialogue and action on biodiversity (2022) – The contribution of ultra-processed foods to agrobiodiversity loss is significant, but so far has been overlooked in global food systems summits, biodiversity conventions and climate change conferences. Ultra-processed foods need to be given urgent and high priority in the agendas of such meetings, and policies and action agreed.
Consumption of Ultra-Processed Foods by Pesco-Vegetarians, Vegetarians, and Vegans: Associations with Duration and Age at Diet Initiation (2020) – This study assessed the intake of ultra-processed foods (UPFs) and unprocessed foods within a group of meat eaters and vegetarians (pesco-vegetarians, vegetarians, and vegans) in France.
Corresponding author:
Kim Anastasiou, Ms, kim.anastasiou@adelaide.edu.au
Transparency | Diversity | Dynamism | Evidence-based |