🔗 Share this article

When you examine a package of M&M's, one of the best-selling sweets in the US, you'll see recognizable ingredients like sugar, skimmed milk powder, and cocoa butter. But, numerous elements are less known: acacia gum, dextrin, carnauba wax, soy lecithin, and E100.

There are 34 components in M&Ms, and no fewer than 30 nations participating in providing them. Each has its own supply chain that converts raw materials into ingredients – beans into chocolate paste, plants into sweetener, oil into artificial coloring.

These components then travel globally to a central processing facility where they are mixed and converted into small multicolored candy-coated chocolates.

It's becoming better understood that food systems are a significant contributor of the climate crisis. Scientists can examine land clearing for farming or methane emissions from livestock. But the environmental impact of ultra-processed foods – like these candies – is more ambiguous and is only now to be understood. One reason they have been challenging to assess is the inherent complexity of ultra-processed foods: these industrially made items include a huge number of ingredients and procedures to put them together, making it extremely difficult to monitor.

However, this doesn't imply it's unimportant. Since ultra-processed foods take over US grocery store shelves and eating habits – they now account for seventy percent of products purchased in grocery stores, and more than half of calories consumed – experts say that understanding their environmental toll is critical to build a greener food system.

The Information We Already Understand

While scientists are only starting to investigate the environmental impact of ultra-processed foods, what's already known about them is concerning.

"The greater the processing foods are, the more deleterious they are to public wellness and the planet," said a senior researcher. The main reason, he explains, is that the components are so energy intensive. When combined, the impact balloons.

Take the popular candy. The first step in creating the candies is cultivating for chocolate beans, sweetener, milk products and palm.

It has been well-documented that farming for ingredients like cocoa drives ever increasing rates of deforestation across the globe. For over a century, agricultural expansion has driven nearly ninety percent of global deforestation, which has been responsible for 30% of worldwide carbon output. Major companies have been called out in the past for agricultural methods in their production network, and have since developed sustainability plans, but these fail to address that large-scale agricultural practices are, fundamentally, ecologically damaging.

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

Furthermore are the industrially made components like artificial colors – possibly the hallmark of intensive manufacturing – which these candies contain 13 different types of. Blue M&Ms are colored with artificial blue dyes; these colorants are mostly made in industrial color production centers India and China, via a chemical reaction of aromatic hydrocarbons with diazonium salt, accelerated 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, extracting phospholipids, bleaching using chemical agents and drying under vacuum pressure. Similarly, dextrose, starts off as maize that gets soaked in chemicals before being milled, separated and dried. From there, it's broken down into simpler compounds using enzymes and acids, and then reformed into crystals.

Although ultra-processed chocolate products are among the most damaging, different types of ultra-processed foods are burdensome on the planet as well. Take for instance another popular snack, which has 39 ingredients. Maize is the primary component, and for every hectare grown, one thousand kilograms of carbon dioxide is emitted to the air. Like major brands, producers have developed their own sustainability promises, but several such promises are underpinned by methods that are considered superficial eco-claims.

Consequently, researchers have started to calculate the ecological cost of UPFs.

One analysis estimated that well-known sweets generate at least 13.2kg of greenhouse gases per kilo produced. With yearly output of over 664 million kg in the US, this would mean that the candies emit at least 3.8 million tons of carbon dioxide – making up zero point one percent of yearly carbon output in the US. But, this is only an estimate based on accessible information; the actual impact is probably significantly greater, experts say.

There's a "black box" when it comes to carbon accounting in the manufactured food sector, notes Patrick Callery who researches how corporations engage with the climate crisis. "There exists so much uncertainty as supply chains get complex."

The Gaps We Have Yet to Discover

Calculating precisely of the environmental toll 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 home-cooked meal at home. Instead, these elements are chemically modified, certain portions stripped away, and flavors, dyes or textures incorporated – and it's unclear what the impact of these methods are because numerous providers and components are involved.

Another reason is that all UPFs are the products of manufacturing corporations that have little incentive to reveal their ecological impact and may not fully understand it to begin with.

For instance, major brands don't cultivate primary components themselves, but instead depend on hundreds of farms that don't always have precise emissions tracking in place. This means that carbon output from large manufacturers may be underreported. Experts said that corporations "lack real measurements, so they use estimated values, which are approximations."

Researchers say that corporations submit data on straightforward aspects like shipping, which are simpler to measure, and often omit or complicate the agricultural emissions of their items. Ultimately, disclosing significant carbon output goes against the interests of major manufacturers, so the intricate assessments needed to establish the carbon footprint of large-scale agriculture and multi-step industrial chemical processes used to make processed food components remain understudied.

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

"Most of the people in the manufacturing sector's value chain are not concerned with climate change from an ideological point of view, but they are interested in profit," explained another expert. He clarifies that to shift those incentives, the value of products and components would need to include their effect on our shared climate. But that would require official policies and economic consequences based on the true environmental cost of ultra-processed foods.

The Reasons It Is Important

For less than two dollars, the cost of M&Ms at the grocery store hardly reflects their real impact on the environment. But to tackle these problems with manufactured products, more than just a minor adjustments to the ingredient list are required.

"Lowering the salt, or sugar of just one product is just greenwashing," stated the expert. "It is necessary to transform the whole picture." To do that, he recommended consuming more regionally produced, unprocessed items, which often take far fewer energy and transit to create, and therefore have a much smaller environmental impact.

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