ArticlePublic health nutrition2025
Quantifying the environmental and food biodiversity impacts of ultra-processed foods: evidence from the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC) study.
Article in Public health nutrition, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Health and environmental co-benefits of reducing ultra-processed food consumption in Argentina: a modelling study.Environmental research letters : ERL [Web site] · 2026Article
- Ultra-processed Foods and Athletes: Current Insights on Classification, Use, Awareness, and Impact-A Narrative Review.Sports medicine - open · 2026Review
- Article
- Shortcomings of food-based dietary guidelines worldwide: a focus on sustainability and food processing issues.Frontiers in nutrition · 2026Article
- Translating nutrition science into national policy: comparative assessment of the 2025-2030 U. S. Dietary Guidelines and the Italian Mediterranean-based guidelines.Frontiers in nutrition · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
43 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveWhile associations of ultra-processed food (UPF) consumption with adverse health outcomes are accruing, its environmental and food biodiversity impacts remain underexplored. This study examines associations between UPF consumption and dietary greenhouse gas emissions (GHGe), land use and food biodiversity.
designProspective cohort study. Linear mixed models estimated associations between UPF intake (g/d and kcal/d) and GHGe (kg CO
participants368 733 participants in the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC) study.
settingEurope.
resultsStronger associations were found for UPF consumption in relation with GHGe and land use compared with unprocessed or minimally processed food consumption. Substituting UPF with unprocessed or minimally processed foods was associated with lower GHGe (8·9 %; 95 % CI: -9·0, -8·9) and land use (9·3 %; -9·5; -9·2) when considering consumption by gram per day and higher GHGe (2·6 %; 95 % CI: 2·5, 2·6) and land use (1·2 %; 1·0; 1·3) when considering consumption in kilocalories per day. Substituting UPF by unprocessed or minimally processed foods led to negligible differences in DSR, both for consumption in grams (-0·1 %; -0·2; -0·1) and kilocalories (1·0 %; 1·0; 1·1).
conclusionUPF consumption was strongly associated with GHGe and land use as compared with unprocessed or minimally processed food consumption, while associations with food biodiversity were marginal. Substituting UPF with unprocessed or minimally processed foods resulted in differing directions of associations with environmental impacts, depending on whether substitutions were weight or energy based.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.