A lethal combination for health and the environment

Industrially processed foods and beverages have increased shelf life and increased availability, helping to meet increasing global food demand and reduce malnutrition. However, the increased production and consumption of ultra-processed foods and beverages (UPFD) has adverse health and environmental impacts.Recent American Journal of Clinical Nutrition This study investigated the combined and separate effects of ultraprocessed beverage (UPD) and ultraprocessed food (UPF) consumption on environmental and all-cause mortality.

study: Associations of Varying Levels of Consumption of Ultraprocessed Foods and Beverages with Environmental Sustainability and All-Cause Mortality in EPIC-NL. Image credit: Bro Types / Shutterstock

Background

UPFD is usually manufactured using specific foods or their ingredients. These foods are turned into ready-to-eat consumables containing large amounts of sugar, fat, salt and synthetic additives. UPFD is an energy-dense food that is rapidly replacing unprocessed foods and beverages.

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

There are not many studies on the environmental impact of UPFD. Certain studies have shown different effects of his UPFD on the environment, depending on the food group and type of food. For example, in terms of GHG emissions, UPF production causes more or similar emissions compared to unprocessed or minimally processed foods. However, UPD production was found to have lower GHG emissions compared to the same unprocessed or minimally processed food.

UPFD requires more packaging, processing and transportation, all of which have a negative impact on the environment. For example, UPFD is packaged in single-use plastic, transported long distances, and requires refrigeration. These products also use large amounts of chemicals, energy, water and additives.

A recent study estimated that UPFD purchases and consumption in France, Brazil and the Netherlands accounted for 24%, 20% and 43% of diet-related GHG emissions respectively. Consumption of UPFD is directly related to the environmental impact of increased caloric intake. Although the majority of studies have investigated the association between his UPFD and all-cause mortality, fewer studies have evaluated the individual effects of UPF and UPD intake on all-cause mortality.

About research

This study recruited participants from the population-based Dutch European Prospective Investigation of Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC-NL) cohort. EPIC-NL consisted of his two cohorts, Prospect and the Monitoring Project for Chronic Disease Risk Factors (MORGEN), formed between 1993 and 1997.

A total of 40,011 participants were enrolled in EPIC-NL at baseline. All participants were between the ages of 20 and 70. Both the Prospect and MORGEN cohorts consisted of male and female candidates. General information such as age, gender, education level, smoking status, and physical activity were obtained from selected participants through a questionnaire. All participants were also instructed to complete a food frequency questionnaire (FFQ).

research result

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 was her UPF and 90 grams her UPD. Salty snacks and cookies/biscuits are commonly consumed as he UPF, while alcoholic beverages, chocolate milk, and sweetened soft drinks are popular UPDs.

Although the difference in effects of diets with low UPF or UPD was statistically significant, it was relatively small. Compared to UPF, UPD intake showed more health risks. For example, we found that the higher the UPF consumption, the lower the diet-related environmental impact. However, increased UPD consumption was associated with increased diet-related environmental impacts, with the exception of land use. The environmental impact of UPFD intake across diets was about the same. UPFD consumption, extent of treatment, and environmental impact varied by quartile.

Our results indicate that the association between UPFD intake and all-cause mortality is primarily caused by UPD intake. Consistent with this finding, a previously conducted meta-analysis found that high consumption of sugary or artificially sweetened beverages was strongly associated with an increased risk of all-cause mortality.

Conclusion

The authors claim that this study is the first to investigate how UPFD, UPF and UPD consumption affect the environment and all-cause mortality. A diet with a higher percentage of UPF showed a lower environmental impact. In the future, further research is needed to quantify the environmental impact of UPF and UPD consumption. Taken together, lower UPD consumption may reduce environmental impact and all-cause mortality risk compared to UPF.