🔗 Share this article

When you inspect a packet of M&M's, among the best-selling sweets in the United States, you'll see recognizable ingredients like sweetener, dried milk, and chocolate fat. However, numerous items are unfamiliar: acacia gum, dextrin, palm wax, soy lecithin, and E100.

There are 34 ingredients in the candy, and at least 30 countries involved in providing them. Every one has its distinct production network that transforms raw materials into usable parts – cocoa into cocoa liquor, cane into sugar, oil into artificial coloring.

These ingredients then travel 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 is now better understood that agricultural networks are a major driver of the environmental emergency. Scientists can study land clearing for farming or methane emissions from livestock. But the environmental impact of highly manufactured products – like M&Ms – is more ambiguous and is only now to come into focus. A key factor they have been so difficult to assess is the inherent complexity of UPFs: these factory-produced items include a vast array of ingredients and procedures to assemble them, making it nearly impossible to track.

However, this doesn't imply it's not important. Since UPFs take over American supermarkets and diets – they now account for 70% of food sold in grocery stores, and more than half of calories consumed – specialists say that assessing their ecological cost is essential to build a greener agricultural system.

What We Already Understand

Although researchers are just beginning to examine the environmental impact of UPFs, existing knowledge about them is concerning.

"The greater the processing foods are, the more deleterious they are to human health and the planet," said Anthony Fardet. The main reason, he clarifies, is that the components are so energy intensive. When combined, the toll expands significantly.

Take M&Ms. The initial phase in producing the sweets is farming for cocoa, sugar, dairy and palm.

It has been well-documented that agriculture for components like chocolate drives consistently rising rates of forest clearance across the globe. Since 1850, farmland growth has driven almost 90% 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 created environmental initiatives, but these fail to address that large-scale agricultural practices are, at their core, ecologically damaging.

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

On top of that are the factory-produced components like artificial colors – perhaps the signature of ultra-processing – which these candies contain thirteen varieties of. Blue M&Ms are dyed with artificial blue dyes; these colorants are primarily produced in industrial color production centers Asia, through synthetic processes of petroleum derivatives with diazonium salt, catalyzed by the metals copper and chromium.

Creating soy lecithin, an additive made from soybean oil that's used to change the consistency of candy, requires procedures like degumming in a heated vessel, chemically isolating phospholipids, decolorization using chemical agents and drying under vacuum pressure. Similarly, dextrose, begins as corn that gets steeped in acid before being milled, divided and dehydrated. Afterward, it's decomposed into smaller molecules using biological catalysts and acids, and then reformed into crystals.

While highly manufactured candies are among the most damaging, different types of ultra-processed foods are taxing on the environment as well. Take for instance another popular snack, which has thirty-nine components. Corn is the primary component, and for every acre grown, 1,000kg of carbon dioxide is emitted to the air. Like other corporations, producers have created their own environmental pledges, but many of these promises are underpinned by methods that are considered superficial eco-claims.

As a result, researchers have started to calculate the ecological cost of ultra-processed foods.

A study calculated that popular candies generate at least thirteen point two kilograms of greenhouse gases per kilogram produced. Considering 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 0.1% of annual emissions in the country. However, this is just a calculation based on publicly available data; the true cost is probably much higher, experts say.

There's a "unknown element" when it comes to carbon accounting in the manufactured food sector, says Patrick Callery who studies how corporations engage with the climate crisis. "There is so much uncertainty as supply chains get complex."

What We Don't Know

Getting an exact measure of the ecological impact of UPFs is extremely challenging, since, definitionally, UPFs consist of many ingredients and a high volume of non-transparent procedures. Ingredients aren't just combined like one would do to make a stew at home. Instead, these elements are chemically modified, certain portions removed, and flavors, colors or consistencies added in – and it's unknown what the impact of these processes are because numerous providers and components are included.

Another reason is that all UPFs are the creations of food companies that have minimal motivation to disclose their environmental footprint and may not fully understand it to begin with.

For instance, major brands do not farm key ingredients themselves, but instead rely on hundreds of farms that may not have precise emissions tracking in place. This means that emissions from large manufacturers may be underestimated. Analysts said that corporations "lack actual data, so they use emissions factors, which are guesses."

Researchers say that corporations submit data on simple things like transportation, which are easier to calculate, and often omit or complicate the agricultural emissions of their product. Ultimately, reporting high emissions goes against the objectives of large food corporations, so the intricate assessments needed to determine the environmental impact of industrial farming and multi-step industrial chemical processes used to make processed food components remain understudied.

"The primary goal of ultra-processed foods is profit," stated Fardet, pointing out that they're designed to be appealing, easy and enjoyable to eat.

"Most of the people in the food industry's production network don't care about global warming from an ethical perspective, but they are interested in profit," explained another expert. He clarifies that to change these motivations, the cost of products and components would need to incorporate their effect on our shared climate. But that would require government regulations and economic consequences based on the actual ecological impact of ultra-processed foods.

Why It Matters

For less than two dollars, the cost of M&Ms at the supermarket hardly reflects their true cost on the planet. But to tackle these problems with manufactured products, more than just a few tweaks to the ingredient list are needed.

"Lowering the sodium, or sweetener of just a single item is just greenwashing," stated the expert. "It is necessary to transform the whole picture." To do that, he recommended consuming more locally sourced, whole foods, which often take far fewer resources and transit to create, and therefore have a much smaller carbon footprint.

Unique products that cannot be sourced locally, like chocolate, should {make up|constitute