Quantifying the environmental and food biodiversity impacts of ultra-processed foods - evidence from the epic study
Author(s)
Type
Journal Article
Abstract
Objective:
While associations of ultra-processed food (UPF) consumption with adverse health outcomes are accruing, its environmental and food biodiversity impacts remain underexplored. This study examines associations between UPF consumption and dietary greenhouse gas emissions (GHGe), land use, and food biodiversity.
Design:
Prospective cohort study. Linear mixed models estimated associations between UPF intake (grams/day and kcal/day) and GHGe (kg CO₂-equivalents/day), land use (m2/day), and dietary species richness (DSR). Substitution analyses assessed the impact of replacing UPFs with unprocessed or minimally processed foods.
Participants:
368,733 participants in the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC) study.
Setting:
Europe
Results:
Stronger associations were found for UPF consumption in relation with GHGe and land use compared to unprocessed or minimally processed food consumption. Substituting UPFs with unprocessed or minimally processed foods was associated with lower GHGe (8.9%; 95%CI: -9.0; -8.9) and land use (9.3%; -9.5; -9.2) when considering consumption by gram per day and higher GHGe (2.6%; 95% CI: 2.5: 2.6) and land use (1.2%; 1.0; 1.3) when considering consumption in kilocalories per day. Substituting UPF by unprocessed or minimally processed foods led to negligible differences in DSR, both for consumption in grams (-0.1%; -0.2; -0.1) and kilocalories (1.0%; 1.0; 1.1).
Conclusion:
UPF consumption was strongly associated with GHGe and land use as compared to unprocessed or minimally processed food consumption, while associations with food biodiversity were marginal. Substituting UPFs with unprocessed or minimally processed foods resulted in differing directions of associations with environmental impacts, depending on whether substitutions were weight- or calorie-based.
While associations of ultra-processed food (UPF) consumption with adverse health outcomes are accruing, its environmental and food biodiversity impacts remain underexplored. This study examines associations between UPF consumption and dietary greenhouse gas emissions (GHGe), land use, and food biodiversity.
Design:
Prospective cohort study. Linear mixed models estimated associations between UPF intake (grams/day and kcal/day) and GHGe (kg CO₂-equivalents/day), land use (m2/day), and dietary species richness (DSR). Substitution analyses assessed the impact of replacing UPFs with unprocessed or minimally processed foods.
Participants:
368,733 participants in the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC) study.
Setting:
Europe
Results:
Stronger associations were found for UPF consumption in relation with GHGe and land use compared to unprocessed or minimally processed food consumption. Substituting UPFs with unprocessed or minimally processed foods was associated with lower GHGe (8.9%; 95%CI: -9.0; -8.9) and land use (9.3%; -9.5; -9.2) when considering consumption by gram per day and higher GHGe (2.6%; 95% CI: 2.5: 2.6) and land use (1.2%; 1.0; 1.3) when considering consumption in kilocalories per day. Substituting UPF by unprocessed or minimally processed foods led to negligible differences in DSR, both for consumption in grams (-0.1%; -0.2; -0.1) and kilocalories (1.0%; 1.0; 1.1).
Conclusion:
UPF consumption was strongly associated with GHGe and land use as compared to unprocessed or minimally processed food consumption, while associations with food biodiversity were marginal. Substituting UPFs with unprocessed or minimally processed foods resulted in differing directions of associations with environmental impacts, depending on whether substitutions were weight- or calorie-based.
Date Issued
2025-09-11
Date Acceptance
2025-08-24
Citation
Public Health Nutrition, 2025, pp.1-20
ISSN
1368-9800
Publisher
Cambridge University Press
Start Page
1
End Page
20
Journal / Book Title
Public Health Nutrition
Copyright Statement
© The Author(s), 2025. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Nutrition Society. This is the author's accepted manucscript made available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution and reproduction, provided the original article is properly cited.
License URL
Publication Status
Accepted
Date Publish Online
2025-09-11