🔗 Share this article

When you inspect a packet of M&M's, one of the most popular candies in the United States, you'll notice familiar ingredients like sugar, dried milk, and cocoa butter. But, many more items are less known: gum arabic, starch gum, palm wax, soy lecithin, and curcumin.

You'll find thirty-four components in M&Ms, and no fewer than 30 nations participating in providing them. Every one has its distinct supply chain that converts base substances into ingredients – cocoa into cocoa liquor, plants into sweetener, petroleum into blue food dye.

These ingredients then journey across the world to a main manufacturing plant where they are mixed and transformed into tiny blue, red, yellow and green candy-coated chocolates.

It's becoming better understood that agricultural networks are a major driver of the climate crisis. Researchers can study deforestation for agriculture or methane emissions from livestock. Yet the environmental impact of highly manufactured products – such as these candies – is more ambiguous and is just beginning to be understood. One reason they have been so difficult to assess is the very nature of ultra-processed foods: these factory-produced foods include a huge number of components and procedures to assemble them, making it nearly impossible to monitor.

However, this doesn't imply it's unimportant. Since ultra-processed foods dominate American supermarkets and eating habits – they now account for seventy percent of products purchased in grocery stores, and over 50% of dietary energy intake – specialists say that assessing their environmental toll is essential to build a more climate-friendly agricultural system.

The Information We Already Understand

Although scientists are just beginning to examine the environmental impact of UPFs, what's already known about them is concerning.

"The greater the processing products become, the more deleterious they are to human health and the planet," said Anthony Fardet. The primary cause, he explains, is that the ingredients are so energy intensive. When combined, the impact expands significantly.

Consider the popular candy. The initial phase in producing the sweets is cultivating for chocolate beans, sugar, dairy and palm oil.

It has been extensive evidence that agriculture for ingredients like cocoa drives ever increasing rates of deforestation across the globe. For over a century, farmland growth has driven nearly ninety percent of global deforestation, which has been responsible for 30% of global greenhouse gas emissions. Large corporations have been criticized in the past for farming practices in their production network, and have since created sustainability plans, but these fail to address that large-scale agricultural practices are, fundamentally, ecologically damaging.

Then there's, sugar, milk solids and palm fat – likewise major greenhouse gas emitters.

Furthermore are the factory-produced ingredients like food dyes – perhaps the signature of ultra-processing – which M&Ms contain 13 different types of. The blue candies are colored with artificial blue dyes; these dyes are primarily produced in industrial color production centers India and China, via a chemical reaction of aromatic hydrocarbons with diazonium salt, accelerated by the elements copper and chromium.

Creating soya lecithin, an additive made from plant oil that's used to alter the texture of chocolate, requires steps like oil refining in a heated vessel, extracting phospholipids, bleaching using hydrogen peroxide and drying under vacuum pressure. Similarly, a sweetener, begins as corn that gets soaked in chemicals before being ground, separated and dried. From there, it's decomposed into smaller molecules using enzymes and acids, and then recrystallized.

Although ultra-processed chocolate products are among the most damaging, other kinds of UPFs are taxing on the planet as well. Take for instance a well-known chip, which has thirty-nine components. Maize is the main ingredient, and for every acre grown, one thousand kilograms of CO2 is released to the atmosphere. Similar to major brands, manufacturers have developed their own environmental pledges, but many of these promises are supported by practices that are considered greenwashing.

Consequently, some experts have started to calculate the environmental toll of ultra-processed foods.

A study estimated that well-known sweets generate at least 13.2kg of greenhouse gases per kilo produced. Considering yearly output of over 664 million kg in the US, this would mean that the products emit at least 3.8 million tons of CO2 – accounting for 0.1% of annual emissions in the country. However, this is just a calculation based on accessible information; the actual impact is probably significantly greater, according to specialists.

There's a "black box" when it comes to carbon accounting in the manufactured food sector, says a professor who studies how companies respond to the climate crisis. "There is so much uncertainty as production networks get complex."

The Gaps We Don't Know

Calculating precisely of the environmental toll of UPFs is nearly impossible, since, definitionally, UPFs consist of numerous components and a high volume of opaque processes. Components aren't just combined like one would do to make a home-cooked meal at home. Rather, these elements are chemically modified, certain portions removed, and tastes, colors or textures added in – and it's unknown what the impact of these processes are because so many suppliers and components are involved.

Another reason is that every ultra-processed food are the products of manufacturing corporations that have minimal motivation to disclose their environmental footprint and might not comprehend it to start with.

As an example, major brands don't farm primary components themselves, but instead rely on hundreds of farms that don't always have accurate carbon accounting measures in place. This means that emissions from big food corporations may be underestimated. Analysts said that corporations "don't have real measurements, so they use emissions factors, which are approximations."

Researchers say that corporations provide reports on straightforward aspects like transportation, which are simpler to measure, and frequently exclude or complicate the farming-related carbon of their product. After all, reporting high emissions contradicts the objectives of major manufacturers, so the intricate assessments needed to establish the carbon footprint of large-scale agriculture and complex manufacturing methods used to make UPF ingredients remain understudied.

"The main point of ultra-processed foods is profit," said the researcher, pointing out that they're created to be attractive, convenient and enjoyable to eat.

"Most of the people in the food industry's value chain don't care about global warming from an ideological point of view, but they do care about profit," said a specialist. He explains that to change these motivations, the cost of products and components would need to include their effect on our global environment. But that would require official policies and economic consequences based on the actual ecological impact of UPFs.

The Reasons It Matters

At just under $2, the cost of popular candies at the grocery store barely represents their true cost on the environment. But to address these problems with manufactured products, more than just a few tweaks to the ingredient list are required.

"Reducing the sodium, or sweetener of just one product is just superficial eco-marketing," said the expert. "We need to change the entire system." To do that, he recommended eating more locally sourced, whole foods, which frequently take much less energy and transit to create, and therefore have a much smaller carbon footprint.

Unique products that can't be sourced locally, like cocoa items, should {make up|constitute