🔗 Share this article

When you examine a packet of M&M's, among the best-selling candies in the US, you'll see recognizable ingredients like sugar, dried milk, and chocolate fat. However, many more items are unfamiliar: acacia gum, starch gum, palm wax, soya lecithin, and curcumin.

There are 34 components in the candy, with at least 30 nations participating in supplying them. Each has its own supply chain that converts base substances into ingredients – cocoa into cocoa liquor, cane into sugar, petroleum into blue food dye.

These components then journey across the world to a central processing facility where they are combined and transformed into tiny multicolored candy-coated chocolates.

It is now more widely recognized that agricultural networks are a significant contributor of the climate crisis. Scientists can study land clearing for farming or methane emissions from livestock. Yet the ecological footprint of ultra-processed foods – such as M&Ms – is more ambiguous and is only now to be understood. One reason they have been challenging to evaluate is the inherent complexity of UPFs: these industrially made items include a vast array of ingredients and processes to put them together, making it nearly impossible to track.

However, this doesn't imply it's not important. Since UPFs dominate American supermarkets and eating habits – they now account for 70% of products purchased in supermarkets, and over 50% of calories consumed – specialists say that assessing their environmental toll is essential to create a more climate-friendly food system.

What We Know

While scientists are only starting to investigate the environmental impact of UPFs, what's already known about them is worrisome.

"The more processed products become, the more harmful they are to public wellness and the environment," said Anthony Fardet. The primary cause, he clarifies, is that the components are so energy intensive. Once assembled, the impact expands significantly.

Take the popular candy. The first step in producing the candies is farming for chocolate beans, sugar, milk products and palm.

It has been well-documented that agriculture for components like cocoa drives consistently rising rates of deforestation worldwide. Since 1850, farmland growth has driven nearly ninety percent of worldwide forest loss, which has been responsible for 30% of worldwide carbon output. Major companies have been criticized in the past for farming practices in their supply chain, and have since developed sustainability plans, but these fail to address that large-scale agricultural practices are, at their core, unsustainable.

Then there's, sugar, dried dairy and palm oil – also major carbon dioxide sources.

On top of that are the factory-produced ingredients like artificial colors – perhaps the signature of ultra-processing – which M&Ms contain thirteen varieties of. The blue candies are dyed with E132 and E133; these colorants are primarily produced in food dye manufacturing hotspots India and China, through synthetic processes of petroleum derivatives with chemical compounds, accelerated by the elements copper or chromium.

Producing soya lecithin, an ingredient made from plant oil that's used to alter the texture of chocolate, requires steps like degumming in a hot reactor, chemically isolating fat molecules, bleaching using hydrogen peroxide and dehydrating under vacuum pressure. And, dextrose, begins as maize that gets soaked in chemicals before being ground, divided and dehydrated. Afterward, it's decomposed into smaller molecules using enzymes and chemicals, and then reformed into crystals.

Although highly manufactured candies are among the most damaging, other kinds of UPFs are burdensome on the environment as well. Consider a well-known chip, which has 39 components. Corn is the primary component, and for every hectare grown, 1,000kg of carbon dioxide is emitted to the atmosphere. Like other corporations, producers have developed their own environmental pledges, but many of these promises are underpinned by practices that are considered greenwashing.

Consequently, researchers have begun estimating the environmental toll of ultra-processed foods.

One analysis estimated that popular candies generate at least 13.2kg of carbon equivalents per kilo produced. With annual production of more than six hundred million kilograms 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. But, this is only an estimate based on accessible information; the actual impact is probably much higher, experts say.

There's a "black box" when it comes to carbon accounting in the processed food industry, notes Patrick Callery who researches how companies engage with the environmental challenge. "There is so much ambiguity as production networks get complex."

What We Have Yet to Discover

Calculating precisely of the ecological impact of ultra-processed foods is nearly impossible, given that, definitionally, UPFs consist of numerous components and a significant number of opaque processes. Components aren't just mixed together like one would do to make a home-cooked meal at home. Instead, these ingredients are altered synthetically, some parts stripped away, and tastes, dyes or textures incorporated – and it's unclear what the cost of these methods are because numerous providers and parts are involved.

A further factor is that every ultra-processed food are the creations of manufacturing corporations that have little incentive to reveal their ecological impact and may not fully understand it to begin with.

For instance, large corporations do not farm key ingredients themselves, but instead rely on numerous growers that don't always have accurate carbon accounting measures in place. This means that carbon output from large manufacturers may be underreported. Analysts noted that corporations "don't have real measurements, so they use emissions factors, which are guesses."

Researchers say that corporations provide reports on simple things like shipping, which are easier to calculate, and frequently exclude or complicate the agricultural emissions of their items. After all, disclosing significant carbon output goes against the objectives of large food corporations, so the complex calculations needed to determine the carbon footprint of large-scale agriculture and complex manufacturing methods used to make processed food components remain understudied.

"The main point of ultra-processed foods is profit," stated the researcher, noting that they're designed to be appealing, convenient and enjoyable to eat.

"Most of the people in the manufacturing sector's production network don't care about climate change from an ideological point of view, but they do care about money," explained a specialist. He explains that to change these motivations, the value of products and components would need to incorporate their impact on our global environment. But that would require official policies and economic consequences based on the true environmental cost of UPFs.

Why It Is Important

At just under $2, the price of popular candies at the grocery store barely represents their real impact on the environment. But to address these problems with ultra-processed foods, more than just a minor adjustments to the component selection are required.

"Reducing the sodium, or sweetener of just one product is just superficial eco-marketing," stated the expert. "It is necessary to change the entire system." To do that, he suggested eating more regionally produced, whole foods, which often take much less energy and transit to produce, and therefore have a much smaller carbon footprint.

Specialty goods that can't be obtained nearby, like cocoa items, should {make up|constitute