Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Analysis
  • Published:

Environmental impacts along the value chain from the consumption of ultra-processed foods

Nature Sustainability volume 6, pages 192–202 (2023)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

Our recognition of the environmental pressures associated with dietary patterns has grown considerably over the past decade. However, few studies have analysed the impacts associated with the consumption of ultra-processed food (UPF) and which steps in the food chain contribute the most. Here, using a representative sample of French adults (2,121 enrolled in the Third French Individual and National Food Consumption survey), we investigate the environmental pressures of diets according to UPF consumption. Food intakes were analysed to define the %UPF by weight in the diet according to the NOVA food-classification system. Using detailed environmental data from Agribalyse, we assessed the contribution of UPF to 14 environmental pressure indicators and the contributions of the different food chain stages to these impacts: production, processing, storage, packaging, transport and retailing. The data were described according to quintiles of %UPF in the diet and analysed using crude and energy-adjusted models. Overall, UPF represented 19% of the diet yet contributed 24% to the diet’s greenhouse gas emissions, 23% to water use, 23% to land use and 26% to energy demand. Compared with low consumers of UPF (quintile 1; median UPF, 7%), high consumers (quintile 5; median UPF, 35%) consumed more caloric energy (+22%). Caloric intake partially explained the higher environmental pressures from high-UPF consumers. After we adjusted for calories consumed, the associations with greenhouse gas emissions and land use vanished, and the associations with water use and energy demand became negative. However, the processing and packaging stages contributed significantly to energy demand. Post-farm stages, such as final-product creation and packaging, contributed greater environmental impacts of UPF-rich diets.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: The contributions of farm and post-farm stages to daily diet-related environmental indicators according to %UPF quintiles (INCA3 study, N = 2,121).
Fig. 2: The contributions of NOVA class consumption to daily diet-related environmental indicators (INCA3 study, N = 2,121).

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

The data described in the manuscript will be made available upon request pending application and approval to collaboration@etude-nutrinet-sante.fr.

Code availability

The code book and analytic code will be made available upon request pending application and approval to collaboration@etude-nutrinet-sante.fr.

References

  1. Lindgren, E. et al. Sustainable food systems—a health perspective. Sustain. Sci. 13, 1505–1517 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Baker, P. et al. Ultra-processed foods and the nutrition transition: global, regional and national trends, food systems transformations and political economy drivers. Obes. Rev. 21, e13126 (2020). Dec.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Willett, W. et al. Food in the Anthropocene: the EAT-Lancet Commission on healthy diets from sustainable food systems. Lancet 393, 447–492 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Srour, B. & Touvier, M. Ultra-processed foods and human health: what do we already know and what will further research tell us? EClinicalMedicine 32, 100747 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Salomé, M. et al. Contrary to ultra-processed foods, the consumption of unprocessed or minimally processed foods is associated with favorable patterns of protein intake, diet quality and lower cardiometabolic risk in French adults (INCA3). Eur. J. Nutr. 60, 4055–4067 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Monteiro, C. A. et al. The UN Decade of Nutrition, the NOVA food classification and the trouble with ultra-processing. Public Health Nutr. 21, 5–17 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Taneri, P. E. et al. Association between ultra-processed food intake and all-cause mortality: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am. J. Epidemiol. 191, 1323–1335 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Suksatan, W. et al. Ultra-processed food consumption and adult mortality risk: a systematic review and dose–response meta-analysis of 207,291 participants. Nutrients 14, 174 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Jardim, M. Z., Costa, B. V. d. L., Pessoa, M. C. & Duarte, C. K. Ultra-processed foods increase noncommunicable chronic disease risk. Nutr. Res. 95, 19–34 (2021).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Delpino, F. M. et al. Ultra-processed food and risk of type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis of longitudinal studies. Int. J. Epidemiol. 51, 1120–1141 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Moradi, S. et al. Ultra-processed food consumption and adult diabetes risk: a systematic review and dose–response meta-analysis. Nutrients 13, 4410 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Dicken, S. J. & Batterham, R. L. The role of diet quality in mediating the association between ultra-processed food intake, obesity and health-related outcomes: a review of prospective cohort studies. Nutrients 14, 23 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Chen, X. et al. Consumption of ultra-processed foods and health outcomes: a systematic review of epidemiological studies. Nutr. J. 19, 86 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Clark, M. A., Springmann, M., Hill, J. & Tilman, D. Multiple health and environmental impacts of foods. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 116, 23357–23362 (2019).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Nutrition and Food Systems Report No. 12 (High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition of the Committee on World Food Security, 2017).

  16. Crippa, M. et al. Food systems are responsible for a third of global anthropogenic GHG emissions. Nat. Food 2, 198–209 (2021).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Poore, J. & Nemecek, T. Reducing food’s environmental impacts through producers and consumers. Science 360, 987–992 (2018).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. da Silva, J. T. et al. Greenhouse gas emissions, water footprint, and ecological footprint of food purchases according to their degree of processing in Brazilian metropolitan areas: a time-series study from 1987 to 2018. Lancet Planet. Health 5, e775–e785 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Vellinga, R. E. et al. Evaluation of foods, drinks and diets in the Netherlands according to the degree of processing for nutritional quality, environmental impact and food costs. BMC Public Health 22, 877 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Seferidi, P. et al. The neglected environmental impacts of ultra-processed foods. Lancet Planet. Health 4, e437–e438 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Garzillo, J. M. F. et al. Ultra-processed food intake and diet carbon and water footprints: a national study in Brazil. Rev. Saude Publica 56, 6 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Anastasiou, K., Baker, P., Hadjikakou, M., Hendrie, G. A. & Lawrence, M. A conceptual framework for understanding the environmental impacts of ultra-processed foods and implications for sustainable food systems. J. Clean. Prod. 368, 133155 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Barré, T. et al. Integrating nutrient bioavailability and co-production links when identifying sustainable diets: how low should we reduce meat consumption? PLoS ONE 13, e0191767 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Hadjikakou, M. Trimming the excess: environmental impacts of discretionary food consumption in Australia. Ecol. Econ. 131, 119–128 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Lemaire, A. & Limbourg, S. How can food loss and waste management achieve sustainable development goals? J. Clean. Prod. 234, 1221–1234 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Fresán, U. & Sabaté, J. Vegetarian diets: planetary health and its alignment with human health. Adv. Nutr. 10, S380–S388 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Fardet, A. & Rock, E. Ultra-processed foods and food system sustainability: what are the links? Sustainability 12, 6280 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Clark, M., Hill, J. & Tilman, D. The diet, health, and environment trilemma. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 43, 109–134 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Vieux, F., Darmon, N., Touazi, D., Soler, L. & Soler, L. G. Greenhouse gas emissions of self-selected individual diets in France: changing the diet structure or consuming less? Ecol. Econ. 75, 91–101 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Hendrie, G. A., Baird, D., Ridoutt, B., Hadjikakou, M. & Noakes, M. Overconsumption of energy and excessive discretionary food intake inflates dietary greenhouse gas emissions in Australia. Nutrients 8, E690 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Aceves-Martins, M. et al. Nutritional quality, environmental impact and cost of ultra-processed foods: a UK food-based analysis. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 19, 3191 (2022).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Notarnicola, B., Tassielli, G., Renzulli, P. A., Castellani, V. & Sala, S. Environmental impacts of food consumption in Europe. J. Clean. Prod. 140, 753–765 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Li, D., Wang, X., Chan, H. K. & Manzini, R. Sustainable food supply chain management. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 152, 1–8 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Leite, F. H. M. et al. Ultra-processed foods should be central to global food systems dialogue and action on biodiversity. BMJ Glob. Health 7, e008269 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Vieux, F., Soler, L. G., Touazi, D. & Darmon, N. High nutritional quality is not associated with low greenhouse gas emissions in self-selected diets of French adults. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 97, 569–583 (2013).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Tilman, D. & Clark, M. Global diets link environmental sustainability and human health. Nature 515, 518–522 (2014).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Swinburn, B. A. et al. The global syndemic of obesity, undernutrition, and climate change: the Lancet Commission report. Lancet 393, 791–846 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Gehring, J. et al. Consumption of ultra-processed foods by pesco-vegetarians, vegetarians, and vegans: associations with duration and age at diet initiation. J. Nutr. 151, 120–131 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. AGRIBALYSE 3.0, the French Agricultural and Food LCI Database, Methodology for Food Products (ADEME, 2020); https://doc.agribalyse.fr/documentation-en/agribalyse-data/documentation

  40. Dubuisson, C. et al. The Third French Individual and National Food Consumption (INCA3) Survey 2014–2015: method, design and participation rate in the framework of a European harmonization process. Public Health Nutr. 22, 584–600 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Sautory, O. INSEE: La Macro CALMAR-Redressement d’un Échantillon par Calage sur Marges (INSEE, 1993); http://www.insee.fr/fr/methodes/outils/calmar/doccalmar.pdf

  42. Aglago, E. K. et al. Evaluation of the international standardized 24-h dietary recall methodology (GloboDiet) for potential application in research and surveillance within African settings. Glob. Health 13, 35 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. French Food Composition Table (CIQUAL) (ANSES, 2012), http://www.afssa.fr/TableCIQUAL

  44. Monteiro, C. A. et al. Ultra-processed foods: what they are and how to identify them. Public Health Nutr. 22, 936–941 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Srour, B. et al. Ultraprocessed food consumption and risk of type 2 diabetes among participants of the NutriNet-Santé prospective cohort. JAMA Intern. Med. 180, 283–291 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Chaltiel, D. et al. Programme National Nutrition Santé—Guidelines Score 2 (PNNS-GS2): development and validation of a diet quality score reflecting the 2017 French dietary guidelines. Br. J. Nutr. 122, 331–342 (2019).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. de Gavelle, E., Huneau, J. F. & Mariotti, F. Patterns of protein food intake are associated with nutrient adequacy in the general French adult population. Nutrients 10, 226 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Colomb, V. et al. AGRIBALYSE: the French public LCI database for agricultural products. ResearchGate https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.2586.0240 (2015).

  49. Guidance for the Development of Product Environmental Footprint Category Rules (PEFCRs)—Version 6.3 (European Commission, 2018); https://ec.europa.eu/environment/eussd/smgp/pdf/PEFCR_guidance_v6.3.pdf

  50. Koch, P. & Salou, T. AGRIBALYSE: Rapport Méthodologique—Volet Agriculture—Version 3.0 (ADEME, 2020); www.ademe.fr/agribalyse-en

  51. Willett, W. C. Nutritional Epidemiology 3rd edn (Oxford Univ. Press, 2012).

  52. SAS Institute Inc. SAS/ACCESS 9.4 Interface to ADABAS. Cary, NC, SAS Institute Inc. (2013).

  53. R Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. https://www.R-project.org (2022).

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank V. Colomb and M. Cornélius (ADEME) for their support in the use of the Agribalyse database.

Author information

Author notes

  1. These authors contributed equally: Julia Baudry, Mathilde Touvier.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Sorbonne Paris Nord University, Inserm, INRAE, Cnam, Nutritional Epidemiology Research Team (EREN), Epidemiology and Statistics Research Center—Paris Cité University (CRESS), Bobigny, France

    Emmanuelle Kesse-Guyot, Benjamin Allès, Joséphine Brunin, Florine Berthy, Serge Hercberg, Chantal Julia, Mélanie Deschasaux-Tanguy, Bernard Srour, Julia Baudry & Mathilde Touvier

  2. Agence de l’Environnement et de la Maîtrise de l’Energie, Angers, France

    Joséphine Brunin

  3. Paris-Saclay University, UMR PNCA, AgroParisTech, INRAE, Paris, France

    Hélène Fouillet, Elie Perraud & François Mariotti

  4. Département de Santé Publique, Hôpital Avicenne, Bobigny, France

    Alison Dussiot, Serge Hercberg & Chantal Julia

  5. Aix Marseille Université, Inserm, INRAE, C2VN, Marseille, France

    Denis Lairon

  6. Solagro, Toulouse, France

    Philippe Pointereau

Authors
  1. Emmanuelle Kesse-Guyot
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Benjamin Allès
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Joséphine Brunin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Hélène Fouillet
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Alison Dussiot
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Florine Berthy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Elie Perraud
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Serge Hercberg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Chantal Julia
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. François Mariotti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Mélanie Deschasaux-Tanguy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Bernard Srour
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  13. Denis Lairon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  14. Philippe Pointereau
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  15. Julia Baudry
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  16. Mathilde Touvier
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

E.K.-G. conducted the research, implemented the databases, conducted the analyses and wrote the manuscript. All authors critically helped in the interpretation of the results, revised the manuscript and provided relevant intellectual input. They all read and approved the final manuscript. E.K.-G. had primary responsibility for the final content; she is the guarantor.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Emmanuelle Kesse-Guyot.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

F.M. was the scientific leader of a PhD project funded until October 2021 in part by a research contract with Terres Univia, the French Interbranch organization for plant oils and proteins. This funding has no link with the present work. The other authors declare no competing interests.

Peer review

Peer review information

Nature Sustainability thanks Jacqueline Da Silva, Paraskevi Seferidi and Reina Vellinga for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

Supplementary Methods 1–3, Tables 1–4 and Figs. 1–3.

Reporting Summary

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kesse-Guyot, E., Allès, B., Brunin, J. et al. Environmental impacts along the value chain from the consumption of ultra-processed foods. Nat Sustain 6, 192–202 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-022-01013-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-022-01013-4

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing Anthropocene

Sign up for the Nature Briefing: Anthropocene newsletter — what matters in anthropocene research, free to your inbox weekly.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing: Anthropocene