A deadly combination for health and the environment

Industrially processed foods and beverages have increased shelf life and availability, which has helped manage growing global food demand and reduce malnutrition. However, there has been an increase in the production and consumption of ultra-processed foods and beverages (UPFD), negatively affecting health and the environment. A recent American Journal of Clinical Nutrition study examined the combined and separate impact of consumption of ultra-processed beverages (UPD) and ultra-processed foods (UPF) on the environment and all-cause mortality.

Study: Different levels of consumption of ultra-processed foods and beverages and associations with environmental sustainability and all-cause mortality in the EPIC-NL. Image Credit: Bro Types / Shutterstock

Background

Typically, UPFDs are produced from a specific food or its components. These foods are processed into ready-to-eat consumables that contain a high amount of sugar, fat, salt and synthetic additives. UPFDs are energy-dense food products that quickly replace unprocessed foods and beverages.

Over the past decades, a rapid increase in the consumption of UPFDs has been observed in the Netherlands. High consumption of UPFD has been associated with the manifestation of cancer, obesity, cardiovascular disease, overweight, and all-cause mortality. Furthermore, the production and consumption of ultra-processed foods not only affects human health, but also has adverse consequences for the environment. UPFDs have been estimated to account for 70% of freshwater withdrawals, 26% of increased greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and 78% of marine and freshwater eutrophication.

Few studies are available regarding the environmental impact of UPFD. Some studies have indicated a differential impact of UPFD on the environment, which depends on the food group and food type. For example, in the context of GHG emissions, UPF production causes higher or similar emissions compared to unprocessed or minimally processed foods. However, in the case of UPD production, lower GHG emissions were noted compared to the same unprocessed or minimally processed food.

UPFDs require more packaging, processing and transportation, all of which negatively affect the environment. For example, UPFD is packaged with single-use plastics, transported long distances, and requires refrigeration. These products also use a large amount of chemicals, energy, water and additives.

A recent survey estimated that the purchase and consumption of UPFDs in France, Brazil and the Netherlands account for 24%, 20% and 43% of food-related GHG emissions, respectively. Consumption of UPFD is directly related to environmental impacts due to higher caloric intake. Although the majority of studies have explored the association between UPF and all-cause mortality, few studies have assessed the individual effect of UPF and UPD consumption on all-cause mortality.

About the study

This study recruited participants from the Dutch European Cancer and Nutrition Prospective Survey Cohort (EPIC-NL). EPIC-NL comprised two cohorts, namely Prospect and the Chronic Disease Risk Factor Surveillance Project (MORGEN), which were formed between 1993 and 1997.

A total of 40,011 participants were present in the EPIC-NL at the start. All participants were between 20 and 70 years old. The Prospect and MORGEN cohorts included both male and female applicants. Background information, such as age, gender, education level, smoking status, and physical activity, was obtained for selected participants through questionnaires. All participants were also asked to complete a food frequency questionnaire (FFQ).

Study results

This prospective study included 38,261 Dutch adults, 76% of whom were women. The average consumption of UPFD was found to be 181 grams per 1000 kcal, of which 91 grams were UPF and 90 grams were UPD. Salty snacks and cookies/biscuits are commonly consumed UPFs, while liqueurs, chocolate milk, and sugary soft drinks are popular UPDs.

Although the differential impact of low UPF or low UPD diets was statistically significant, it was relatively small. Compared to UPF, consumption of UPD has been shown to have more health risks. For example, high UPF intake was associated with lower diet-related environmental impacts. However, higher DFU consumption was linked to higher diet-related environmental impacts, except for land use. The overall dietary effect of consuming UPFD on the environment was nearly the same. The amount of consumption of UPFDs, their degree of transformation and their effect on the environment varied from quartile to quartile.

The results of the current study indicated that the association between UPFD consumption and all-cause mortality was primarily due to UPFD consumption. Consistent with this finding, a previously conducted meta-analysis found that high consumption of sugar or artificially sweetened beverages is strongly linked to a higher risk of all-cause mortality.

conclusion

The authors state that this study is the first to investigate how consumption of UPFD, UPF, and UPD affects the environment and all-cause mortality. Diets with a higher proportion of UPF had lower environmental impacts. In the future, further studies are needed to quantify the environmental impact of UPF and UPD consumption. Overall, compared to UPF, lower UPD consumption could reduce environmental impact and risk of all-cause mortality.