UPFs has replaced traditional, whole foods in our daily diets. But how bad are they actually?

In today’s modern world, convenience has become the core of our way of living, and it’s evident from the way we eat. ​​The rise of ultra-processed foods (UPFs) has become synonymous with our fast-paced lifestyles, offering quick, cheap, and easily accessible options. From junk foods and packaged snacks to ready-to-eat meals and canned goods, these foods have reshaped our food culture and consumption patterns, emphasizing efficiency, distancing, and convenience over nutrition. However, convenience comes at a cost, not only to our health but also to the environment. 

UPFs are foods that have gone through extensive processing and bear little to no resemblance to their original, raw form. UPFs are often packed with additives like salt, sugar, fat, artificial coloring, antioxidants, and preservatives to elongate shelf life. By adding certain food ingredients, these processing techniques have made food more appetizing (eg, grains), safe (eg, pasteurized milk), and widely available worldwide, regardless of type, season, and country of origin (eg, canned, dried, smoked, frozen, fermented). The convenience of UPFs lies in their accessibility, often dominating supermarket shelves and fast-food menus. Yet, their allure goes beyond convenience; they are calorie-dense, high in sugars, refined starches, unhealthy fats, and sodium, making them a significant contributor to the global obesity epidemic.

UPFs and human health

The rise of UPFs consumption goes hand in hand with the decline of physical activity. This has led to an alarming increase in overweight, obesity, and other nutrition-related noncommunicable diseases (NCDs) prevalence. In low- and middle-income countries, UPFs have become a replacement for traditional foods in daily diets. The shift in diet high in UPFs is accompanied by a decrease in water intake and an increase in high-calorie beverages such as sodas and juices that possess a significant health risk. This dietary pattern contributes to weight gain and elevates the risk of NCDs like diabetes, hypertension, coronary heart diseases, and even could potentially contribute to types of cancer. 

A 2-week randomized controlled trial targeting 20 weight-stable adults in the US found a significant correlation between UPFs and weight gain. People who consume more Westernized-style diets, characterized by a low intake of fruits and vegetables and a high intake of UPFs, are more likely to gain weight than those who follow dietary patterns with more intake of whole foods. The calorie density of UPFs, coupled with their low protein and essential micronutrient contents, increases the likelihood of weight gain and paves the way for potential diet-related health issues.

UPFs and planetary health

Beyond the impact on human health, the production and consumption of UPFs also take a toll on the environment. This is because the main raw materials used for UPFs come from types of food that have the highest environmental impact. Processed carbohydrates in UPF production such as sugar syrups, maltodextrins, and dextrose are mainly extracted from maize, wheat, rice, and potato, which are staple crops that are commonly cultivated through monoculture farming. Worse still, UPFs also use processed proteins such as isolates from soy, pea, egg, milk, meat, gluten, and other animal-derived hydrolysates that emit high greenhouse gas emissions (GHGE). Therefore, out of the entire UPF production process, the agriculture phase contributes the highest carbon emissions, accounting for 65% of the total carbon emissions, followed by transportation at 19%.

A package of ice cream, for example, contains raw materials from animal-derived products, such as milk or milk powder, which contributes to high GHGE and deforestation. The livestock supply chain is infamously known as the main source of GHGE in agriculture, particularly from feed production (45%), and processing and enteric fermentation from ruminants that release high levels of methane emissions (39%). This is consistent with current evidence that suggests that diets high in animal products and UPFs contribute highly to GHGEs. The combination of a high-calorie diet with a reliance on UPFs and animal products creates a significant environmental footprint that can worsen climate change concerns. This highlights the need for a solution to mitigate the environmental impact of both the cultivation and distribution process.

The use of non-biodegradable packaging in UPFs, like plastics, contributes significantly to environmental waste. Not only that, the overconsumption of over-packaged plastic UPFs also adds to the global plastic pollution crisis. The rapid increase of single-use plastics contributes to environmental degradation, especially in oceans and waterways, affecting marine life and ecosystems. Other than the high amount of plastic waste, the material used for UPF packaging can also contain carcinogenic and endocrine-disrupting properties, posing additional threats to our health and the ecosystems. In regions where there is poor waste management, single-use packaging could cause an inflation of waste in the soil.

UPFs and social equity

The production of UPFs is mainly done by Big Food, including agroindustrial and food biotechnology corporations, processing industries, trading companies, and supermarket chains, which dictate the majority of agricultural practices. Monoculture farming is done by these multinational corporations to meet the demands for specific ingredients. It negatively impacts food resilience, as it shifts the focus from the diversification of crops that can withstand the change of climate toward more resource-intensive, monoculture practices, farmers’ monetary proportion and welfare, and physical and psychological separation between people and food. The use of pesticides in monoculture not only pollutes the soil but also contributes to high GHGEs, particularly via the application of insecticides.

Our recommendations

The aftermath of UPFs harms both human health and planetary health. To overcome this, we need a set of solutions that could address these problems. Regarding packaging, we could advocate for more environmentally friendly packaging materials to be used by food industries and simultaneously allow for more policies that support manufacturers to produce more sustainable packaging to create a balance in supply and demand. Another potentially effective solution is to support food industries in developing products with reduced reliance on livestock and animal-derived ingredients while maintaining their original product characteristics. 

Implementing policies related to UPF advertisement and marketing could also regulate companies to be more responsible in promoting their products (eg, prohibit or impose higher costs for the advertisement to vulnerable populations). For example, such regulation could be implemented in the vicinity of schools as those advertisements increase dietary preferences, purchasing requests, and consumption patterns, particularly in children. In Indonesia, food and beverages advertisement policies have already been implemented (eg, companies are not allowed to write certain health claims and formulas for infants that cannot be commercialized anywhere except for scientific forums and certain audiences); however, to what extent it is monitored merits further investigation. 

Another impactful policy could also involve mandatory labeling standards, providing consumers with clear information about the products they purchase as it could affect consumers’ food choices. For example, the government could come up with labels that indicate whether the products that we buy are minimally processed or ultra-processed, including its relation to health, nutrition, and environmental sustainability. 

Taking it a step further, the government could introduce policies requiring industries to pay taxes on ingredients that are either harmful to human health or degrading to the environment (eg, those with high GHGEs, high deforestation rate, and negative impact on biodiversity), so that companies are bound to healthier and more sustainable practices. By addressing both the supply and demand aspects, along with responsible advertising and taxation policies, a comprehensive approach can be taken towards fostering a more sustainable and health-conscious industrial landscape.

Indonesia has implemented many policies regarding the food industries, either for small and medium enterprises or big companies. However, who is or should be responsible for making those policies known to the public is still unclear. Apart from that, the effectiveness of implementing these policies, specifically with respect to food labeling, is influenced by people’s literacy levels. Further efforts are needed to ensure that policy-related information can be conveyed more effectively to the public.

References:

1. Hall, K.D. et al. (2019) ‘Ultra-processed diets cause excess calorie intake and weight gain: An inpatient randomized controlled trial of AD Libitum Food Intake’, Cell Metabolism, 30(1). doi:10.1016/j.cmet.2019.05.008. 

2. Fardet, A. and Rock, E. (2020) ‘Ultra-processed foods and food system sustainability: What are the links?’, Sustainability, 12(15), p. 6280. doi:10.3390/su12156280. 

3. Seferidi, P. et al. (2020) ‘The neglected environmental impacts of ultra-processed foods’, The Lancet Planetary Health, 4(10). doi:10.1016/s2542-5196(20)30177-7. 

4. Popkin, B.M. and Ng, S.W. (2021) ‘The nutrition transition to a stage of high obesity and noncommunicable disease prevalence dominated by ultra‐processed foods is not inevitable’, Obesity Reviews, 23(1). doi:10.1111/obr.13366. 

5. Solid waste management, UNEP. Available at: https://www.unep.org/explore-topics/resource-efficiency/what-we-do/cities/solid-waste-management#:~:text=Poor%20waste%20management%20%2D%20ranging%20from,cause%20infection%20and%20transmit%20diseases. (Accessed: 08 March 2024). 

6. Abubakar, I.R. et al. (2022) ‘Environmental sustainability impacts of solid waste management practices in the Global South’, International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(19), p. 12717. doi:10.3390/ijerph191912717. 

7. Boyland, E.J. et al. (2016) ‘Advertising as a cue to consume: A systematic review and meta-analysis of the effects of acute exposure to unhealthy food and nonalcoholic beverage advertising on intake in children and adults’, The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 103(2), pp. 519–533. doi:10.3945/ajcn.115.120022. 

8. Cairns, G. et al. (2013) ‘Systematic reviews of the evidence on the nature, extent and effects of food marketing to children. A retrospective summary’, Appetite, 62, pp. 209–215. doi:10.1016/j.appet.2012.04.017. 

9. Robinson, T.N. et al. (2007) ‘Effects of fast food branding on young children’s taste preferences’, Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, 161(8), p. 792. doi:10.1001/archpedi.161.8.792. 

10. Sadeghirad, B. et al. (2016) ‘Influence of unhealthy food and beverage marketing on children’s dietary intake and preference: A systematic review and meta‐analysis of randomized trials’, Obesity Reviews, 17(10), pp. 945–959. doi:10.1111/obr.12445.