A large European study of nearly 370,000 people found that eating ultra-processed foods (like packaged snacks, sugary drinks, and instant meals) creates more pollution and uses more land than eating fresh, whole foods. When researchers looked at what would happen if people swapped ultra-processed foods for fresh foods, they found it could reduce pollution from food by about 9%. Interestingly, the study found that ultra-processed foods don’t really affect the variety of foods people eat. This research suggests that choosing fresh foods over processed ones is better for the environment, not just for our bodies.

The Quick Take

  • What they studied: Whether eating ultra-processed foods (packaged, ready-to-eat products) creates more environmental damage than eating fresh, whole foods
  • Who participated: Nearly 370,000 adults from across Europe who were part of a long-term health study. Researchers tracked what they ate and calculated the environmental impact of their diets.
  • Key finding: Ultra-processed foods create about 9% more pollution and use about 9% more land compared to fresh foods. When people replaced ultra-processed foods with fresh foods, their diet’s environmental footprint shrank noticeably.
  • What it means for you: Choosing fresh, whole foods over packaged ultra-processed foods is better for the planet. However, this is just one study, and the environmental benefits depend on exactly how you measure them (by weight or calories). Talk to your doctor about making dietary changes.

The Research Details

This was a prospective cohort study, which means researchers followed the same group of people over time and tracked what they ate. The study included 368,733 people from across Europe who were part of the EPIC study (a long-term health research project). Researchers asked people about their food intake and then calculated how much pollution their diets created and how much land was needed to produce their food.

The researchers used special calculations to measure three things: greenhouse gas emissions (pollution that contributes to climate change), land use (how much farmland was needed), and food biodiversity (how many different types of foods people ate). They compared people who ate lots of ultra-processed foods to those who ate mostly fresh, whole foods.

They also did something called ‘substitution analysis,’ which means they calculated what would happen if people replaced ultra-processed foods with fresh foods. This helped them understand the real-world impact of making dietary changes.

This approach is important because it looks at real people’s actual eating habits over time, rather than just testing things in a lab. By studying such a large group across Europe, the results are more likely to apply to many different people. The substitution analysis is particularly useful because it shows what would actually happen if people made changes to their diet.

This study has several strengths: it included a very large number of people (nearly 370,000), it followed them over time, and it was conducted across multiple European countries. However, the study relied on people remembering and reporting what they ate, which can sometimes be inaccurate. The study also only measured associations (connections) between foods and environmental impact, not proof that one causes the other. Additionally, the results varied depending on whether researchers measured food by weight or by calories, which suggests the findings are somewhat complex.

What the Results Show

The study found that people who ate more ultra-processed foods had diets that created significantly more greenhouse gas emissions (pollution) and required more land to produce compared to people who ate mostly fresh, whole foods. When researchers looked at what would happen if people replaced ultra-processed foods with fresh foods, they found that switching could reduce the pollution from food by about 8.9% and reduce land use by about 9.3%.

However, the researchers discovered something interesting: these benefits changed depending on how you measured the switch. When they measured by the weight of food (grams), replacing ultra-processed foods with fresh foods reduced pollution. But when they measured by calories (the energy in food), the results were different and sometimes went in the opposite direction. This suggests that the environmental benefit depends on exactly how people make the switch.

The study also looked at food biodiversity—how many different types of foods people ate. Surprisingly, switching from ultra-processed to fresh foods made almost no difference in the variety of foods in people’s diets. This was true whether researchers measured by weight or calories.

The research showed that ultra-processed foods consistently had a stronger connection to environmental damage than fresh foods. The differences were particularly clear when looking at greenhouse gas emissions and land use. The study also revealed that the relationship between ultra-processed food consumption and environmental impact was consistent across the large European population studied, suggesting these findings likely apply to many different groups of people.

Previous research has shown that ultra-processed foods are bad for human health, but there hasn’t been much research on their environmental impact. This study fills that gap by showing that ultra-processed foods are also harder on the planet. The findings support the idea that eating fresh, whole foods is better both for our bodies and for the environment. However, this is one of the first large studies to look at this connection, so more research is needed to confirm these findings.

The study has several important limitations. First, it relied on people remembering and reporting what they ate, which can be inaccurate. Second, the study only shows associations (connections) between ultra-processed foods and environmental impact—it doesn’t prove that ultra-processed foods directly cause environmental damage. Third, the results changed depending on whether researchers measured food by weight or calories, which makes the findings more complicated to interpret. Finally, the study was done in Europe, so the results might not apply exactly the same way in other parts of the world where different foods are available and farming practices are different.

The Bottom Line

Based on this research, choosing fresh, whole foods over ultra-processed foods appears to be better for the environment. The evidence suggests a moderate level of confidence in this finding. However, this is just one study, and more research is needed. If you’re interested in reducing your environmental impact through food choices, gradually replacing ultra-processed foods with fresh vegetables, fruits, whole grains, and unprocessed proteins is a reasonable approach. Consult with a healthcare provider or registered dietitian before making major dietary changes.

This research is relevant to anyone interested in environmental sustainability and climate change. It’s particularly important for people who want to reduce their personal environmental footprint through food choices. Parents concerned about teaching children healthy eating habits may also find this useful. However, people with specific medical conditions or dietary restrictions should talk to their doctor before making changes, as fresh foods aren’t always the right choice for everyone.

If you switch from ultra-processed to fresh foods, you won’t see environmental benefits immediately—the impact is measured at a population level over time. However, you might notice personal health benefits within weeks to months, depending on your individual situation. The environmental benefits of widespread dietary changes would accumulate over years as more people make the switch.

Want to Apply This Research?

  • Track the number of ultra-processed foods you eat per day and gradually reduce this number. Set a goal to replace one ultra-processed food item per week with a fresh alternative. Measure success by counting how many days per week you eat mostly fresh, whole foods.
  • Use the app to log meals and identify which ultra-processed foods you eat most often. Then find fresh alternatives for those specific foods. For example, if you regularly drink sugary sodas, replace them with water or unsweetened tea. If you eat packaged snacks, replace them with fresh fruit or nuts. Start with one or two swaps and gradually add more.
  • Track your weekly percentage of meals made from fresh, whole foods versus ultra-processed foods. Set a long-term goal to increase the percentage of fresh food meals to 70-80% of your diet. Review your progress monthly and adjust your goals as needed. Consider also tracking how you feel—energy levels, digestion, and overall wellness—as you make these changes.

This research shows associations between ultra-processed food consumption and environmental impact, but does not prove that ultra-processed foods directly cause environmental damage. This study was conducted in Europe and may not apply equally to all populations or regions. Before making significant dietary changes, especially if you have medical conditions, food allergies, or take medications, consult with your healthcare provider or a registered dietitian. This information is for educational purposes and should not replace professional medical advice.