🔗 Share this article

If you examine a package of M&M's, one of the best-selling sweets in the United States, you'll see familiar components like sweetener, dried milk, and cocoa butter. However, many more items are unfamiliar: gum arabic, dextrin, carnauba wax, soy lecithin, and E100.

There are thirty-four ingredients in M&Ms, and no fewer than thirty countries involved in supplying them. Each has its own supply chain that transforms raw materials into ingredients – beans into chocolate paste, cane into sugar, petroleum into blue food dye.

These ingredients then travel globally to a main manufacturing plant where they are combined and converted into small blue, red, yellow and green candy-coated chocolates.

It's becoming more widely recognized that food systems are a significant contributor of the climate crisis. Researchers can study deforestation for agriculture or methane emissions from livestock. But the environmental impact of ultra-processed foods – such as these candies – is less clear and is just beginning to come into focus. A key factor they have been challenging to assess is the inherent complexity of UPFs: these factory-produced items include a vast array of ingredients and processes to put them together, making it extremely difficult to track.

However, this doesn't imply it's unimportant. As ultra-processed foods dominate American supermarkets and eating habits – they now account for 70% of products purchased in supermarkets, and over 50% of dietary energy intake – experts say that assessing their ecological cost is essential to create a more climate-friendly agricultural system.

The Information We Know

While researchers are just beginning to examine the ecological effects of ultra-processed foods, existing knowledge about them is worrisome.

"The greater the processing foods are, the more harmful they are to public wellness and the planet," said a senior researcher. The main reason, he clarifies, is that the ingredients are so resource demanding. When combined, the toll balloons.

Consider the popular candy. The initial phase in creating the sweets is cultivating for chocolate beans, sugar, milk products and palm.

It has been extensive evidence that agriculture for components like chocolate drives consistently rising rates of forest clearance across the globe. For over a century, farmland growth has driven almost 90% of worldwide forest loss, which has been responsible for thirty percent of worldwide carbon output. 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 industrial farming are, fundamentally, unsustainable.

Then there's, sugar, dried dairy and palm oil – also major greenhouse gas emitters.

On top of that are the industrially made ingredients like artificial colors – perhaps the signature of ultra-processing – which M&Ms contain 13 different types of. The blue candies are dyed with E132 and E133; these colorants are mostly made in industrial color production centers India and China, via a chemical reaction of aromatic hydrocarbons with chemical compounds, accelerated by the elements copper and chromium.

Producing soya lecithin, an additive made from soybean oil that's used to change the consistency of chocolate, requires steps like oil refining in a heated vessel, extracting fat molecules, decolorization using hydrogen peroxide and drying under vacuum pressure. And, a sweetener, starts off as maize that gets steeped in acid before being milled, divided and dehydrated. From there, it's broken down into simpler compounds using biological catalysts and chemicals, and then reformed into crystals.

Although ultra-processed chocolate products are some of the worst offenders, other kinds of ultra-processed foods are burdensome on the planet as well. Take for instance a well-known chip, which has 39 components. Maize is the main ingredient, and for every acre grown, 1,000kg of CO2 is emitted to the air. Similar to major brands, producers have developed their own sustainability promises, but several such commitments are supported by practices that are considered greenwashing.

Consequently, researchers have begun estimating the ecological cost of UPFs.

One analysis estimated that well-known sweets generate at least thirteen point two kilograms of carbon equivalents per kilogram produced. With yearly output of more than six hundred million kilograms in the United States, this would mean that the candies emit at least three point eight million tonnes of carbon dioxide – accounting for zero point one percent of yearly carbon output in the US. However, this is just a calculation based on publicly available data; 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 studies how corporations respond to the environmental challenge. "There exists so much ambiguity as supply chains get complicated."

The Gaps We Don't Know

Calculating precisely of the environmental toll of UPFs is extremely challenging, given that, definitionally, these products consist of numerous components and a high volume of opaque processes. Ingredients aren't just mixed together like one would do to make a home-cooked meal at home. Rather, these elements are chemically modified, some parts stripped away, and tastes, dyes or textures added in – and it's unclear what the cost of these methods are because numerous providers and parts are involved.

A further factor is that all UPFs are the creations of manufacturing corporations that have minimal motivation to disclose their environmental footprint and might not comprehend it to begin with.

As an example, major brands 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 emissions from big food corporations may be underestimated. Experts noted that corporations "don't have real measurements, so they use estimated values, which are approximations."

Specialists say that corporations submit data on straightforward aspects 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 interests of major manufacturers, so the complex calculations needed to establish the carbon footprint of large-scale agriculture and multi-step industrial chemical processes used to make processed food components remain un-researched.

"The main point of manufactured products is profit," said Fardet, noting that they're designed to be attractive, easy and enjoyable to eat.

"The majority of individuals in the manufacturing sector's production network are not concerned with global warming from an ethical perspective, but they are interested in profit," said a specialist. He explains that to shift those incentives, the value of products and components would need to incorporate their impact on our global environment. But that would require official policies and financial penalties based on the actual ecological impact of UPFs.

The Reasons It Is Important

At just under $2, the cost of M&Ms at the grocery store hardly reflects their real impact on the planet. But to tackle these issues with ultra-processed foods, not only a few tweaks to the ingredient list are required.

"Reducing the salt, or sweetener of just a single item is just greenwashing," said Fardet. "We need to change the whole picture." To do that, he suggested eating more locally sourced, whole foods, which often take much less resources and transportation to produce, and therefore have a much smaller carbon footprint.

Specialty goods that cannot be sourced locally, like cocoa items, should {make up|constitute