Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2022 Mar 8;19(6):3191.
doi: 10.3390/ijerph19063191.

Nutritional Quality, Environmental Impact and Cost of Ultra-Processed Foods: A UK Food-Based Analysis

Affiliations

Nutritional Quality, Environmental Impact and Cost of Ultra-Processed Foods: A UK Food-Based Analysis

Magaly Aceves-Martins et al. Int J Environ Res Public Health. .

Abstract

Food-based analyses of the healthiness, environmental sustainability and affordability of processed and ultra-processed foods are lacking. This paper aimed to determine how ultra-processed and processed foods compare to fresh and minimally processed foods in relation to nutritional quality, greenhouse gas emissions and cost on the food and food group level. Data from the National Diet and Nutrition Survey nutrient databank year 11 (2018/2019) were used for this analysis. Median and bootstrapped medians of nutritional quality (NRF8.3 index), greenhouse gas emissions (gCO2-equivalents) and cost (in GBP) were compared across processing categories. An optimal score based on the medians was created to identify the most nutritional, sustainable, and affordable options across processing categories. On a per 100 kcal basis, ultra-processed and processed foods had a lower nutritional quality, lower greenhouse gas emissions, and were cheaper than minimally processed foods, regardless of their total fat, salt and/or sugar content. The most nutritious, environmentally friendly, and affordable foods were generally lower in total fat, salt, and sugar, irrespective of processing level. The high variability in greenhouse gas emissions and cost across food groups and processing levels offer opportunities for food swaps representing the healthiest, greenest, and most affordable options.

Keywords: NDNS; NOVA; NRF8.3; cost; food; sustainability.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Three dimensions visual evaluation of the association between the actual values.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Distribution of scores per food group and NOVA Category. ■ NOVA 4 items ■ NOVA 3 items, ■ NOVA 1 items. High sugar products are defined as food with ≥22.5 g/100 g or drinks with ≥11.25 g/100 g of total sugar; high-fat products are defined as food with ≥17.5 g/100 g of fat or ≥ 5.0 g/100 g saturated fat or drinks ≥8.75 g/100 g of fat or ≥2.5 g/100 g of saturated fat; high salt defined as food with ≥1.5 g/100 g of salt or drinks ≥0.75 g/100 g of salt. This score was based on the overall GHGE, nutritional quality, and cost medians per 100 kcal for each item. Each food scored 1 point if its GHGE was under the median, 1 point if its cost was under the median, and 1 point if its nutritional score was above the median for the relevant food group. Those items with the highest score (scoring 3) showcase the most environmentally sustainable, nutritious, and affordable products per every 100 kcal.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Sadler C.R., Grassby T., Hart K., Raats M., Sokolović M., Timotijevic L. Processed food classification: Conceptualisation and challenges. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2021;112:149–162. doi: 10.1016/j.tifs.2021.02.059. - DOI
    1. Monteiro C.A., Cannon G., Moubarac J.-C., Levy R.B., Louzada M.L.C., Jaime P.C. The UN Decade of Nutrition, the NOVA food classification and the trouble with ultra-processing. Public Health Nutr. 2018;21:5–17. doi: 10.1017/S1368980017000234. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Monteiro C.A., Cannon G., Lawrence M., Costa Louzada M.D., Pereira Machado P. Ultra-Processed Foods, Diet Quality, and Health Using the NOVA Classification System. FAO; Rome, Italy: 2019.
    1. Knorr D., Augustin M.A. Food processing needs, advantages and misconceptions. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2021;108:103–110. doi: 10.1016/j.tifs.2020.11.026. - DOI
    1. Lawrence M.A., Baker P.I. Ultra-processed food and adverse health outcomes. BMJ. 2019:l2289. doi: 10.1136/bmj.l2289. - DOI - PubMed

Publication types