40
The hidden cost of ultra-processed foods on the environment: ‘The whole industry should pay’
(www.theguardian.com)
this post was submitted on 10 Oct 2025
40 points (95.5% liked)
Environment
4671 readers
1 users here now
Environmental and ecological discussion, particularly of things like weather and other natural phenomena (especially if they're not breaking news).
See also our Nature and Gardening community for discussion centered around things like hiking, animals in their natural habitat, and gardening (urban or rural).
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Ok, I think I understand better what you meant. It looks like we see things very differently.
For example, in a conversation about ultra-processed foods I don't see what you mention: it’s always been intended to target poor people’s food. Instead, I see capitalist/neoliberal/etc economic incentives and neglect for anything or anyone else. What do I mean by that?
For me, the capitalists that are in the food industry are there because they just care about the economic value, not the nutritional one. So in order to maximise their profit these capitalists/industrialists/etc, they say something like: "if I buy 1 potato I can make 1 potato chips packet, but if I turn this potato into powder then I can mix it with this other powders and get 5 packs of crisps that I can sell cheaper than the competitor with the real potato crisps"
So poor people are affected by UPFs not because there is a conspiracy targeting them, but because UPFs have almost zero nutritional value, while being in the price range they can afford to consume.
I don't mean that the people selling UPFs are part of a grift, but the people that talk about it are.
It's targeting middle class people and says you should feel bad about eating cheap and easy to cook food. As such, it feeds into product differentiation and empowers capitalism, by telling people with more money that they have a moral necessity to eat more expensive food.
Alienating and bullying poor people is just a side effect of the grift.
The reason I say it is a grift, is because the whole thing is run entirely on vibes. The people selling the idea of UPFs struggle to say if particular foods are UPFs or not, and they can't identify harms that make it meaningful to talk about them.
Are there foods that are bad for you? Yes.
Are they all UPFs? No.
Are all UPFs bad for you? Also no.
Is it true that most UPFs have almost zero nutritional value? Absolutely not.
So instead of engaging in a meaningful debate about specific harms and what can be done about them, UPFs just tell you to spend more time and money on food or feel guilty.
The environmental harms are the same. The article made no attempt to actually say what the harm is e.g. per packet of m&ms, but because of economies of scale and their long shelf life means they can be shipped slowly, we should be very suspicious of any claim that they are particularly bad vs. more gourmet alternatives.
I don't think the intent or messaging should be to shame people for their choices in buying ultra processed convenience foods - because the real problem is that they don't have the choice. Systemic factors have made whole, locally produced, healthy foods inaccessible for too many people - food deserts and the consolidation of the agricultural and food production sectors, and the fact that people juggling multiple jobs and childcare just don't have the time to prepare meals from scratch.
Systemic problems require collective solutions, either from government or from direct organizing. But the first step is to identify the problem and research the harms that UPF and long supply chains cause.