The Hidden Cost of What We Eat: Ultra-Processed Foods and Australia’s Burden on Nature
Introduction
What you eat affects nature and the planet. In the quiet moments after meals, most of us don’t think about the journey our food has taken—from farm to plate to distant forests and oceans. Yet every bite ripples through ecosystems, climate, and the web of life that sustains us. In Australia, the steady shift toward ultra-processed foods (UPFs) is shaping not only our health but also the health of the Country’s flora, fauna, and the vast seas around us.
The global picture
The global food system accounts for roughly 25–30% of human-caused greenhouse gas emissions (1). This staggering share reflects the many pathways from farm to plate: land-use change, energy use, transport, packaging, and retail. Within this system, UPFs play a paradoxical role—light in weight but heavy in impact.
In the United States, UPFs now account for over 50% of dietary energy intake, while in Britain the figure is even higher, around 56%. In Australia, recent surveys estimate that adults contribute about 40% of total dietary energy intake, compared with 19% in France, where UPFs are responsible for 24% of diet-related emissions (10–11,14).
Why only France has a comparable emissions share: France is one of the few countries able to quantify the share of diet-related greenhouse gas emissions attributable to UPFs because researchers could link detailed consumption data classified by NOVA to AGRIBALYSE, the national life‑cycle assessment (LCA) database for foods. This pairing allows item-level footprints (from farm to plate) to be aggregated by processing category. In most countries, comparable estimates are not yet available because national LCA datasets are incomplete, not harmonised with NOVA, or not integrated with large, representative diet surveys—hence the absence of like-for-like figures for the US, UK and Australia (16–18). Across these countries, the pattern is clear: the more industrially processed the diet, the greater the ecological footprint per calorie consumed. UPFs’ long supply chains, energy-intensive processing, and reliance on monoculture crops amplify emissions far beyond their apparent share of the diet.
Why UPFs weigh so heavily
UPFs demand energy-intensive processing, rely on monocultures like soy and corn, and often draw on intensive livestock systems. Each stage—farm, factory, packaging, transport—adds emissions (3). Because they are designed for long shelf-life and global supply chains, their environmental costs exceed what their weight suggests. When livestock emissions, deforestation for feed, and industrial farming are included, the toll becomes clear (4). Australia shows a comparable pattern: UPFs account for about 14% of total dietary greenhouse gas emissions (15). While the proportion is somewhat lower than in France, the finding underlines that even in countries with very different food systems, UPFs carry a disproportionate carbon burden relative to their nutritional value.
Australia’s ecological stakes
Australia’s story mirrors global patterns but plays out with sharper edges because of the continent’s ecological fragility. The food economy is immense—worth around $800 billion annually, including production, processing, retail, and exports. Yet this activity comes at a cost that often goes unpriced in market terms: soil degradation, biodiversity loss, water stress, and greenhouse gas emissions (5).
UPFs’ carbon burden in Australia
Recent evidence shows that UPFs contribute approximately 14% of the country’s total dietary greenhouse gas emissions (15). This figure highlights the disproportionate ecological weight of processed products relative to their nutritional value, reinforcing the urgency of addressing both dietary health and sustainability together.
Biodiversity under pressure
Agriculture remains the single most significant driver of land clearing in Australia. Since 2011, close to two million hectares of koala habitat have been bulldozed, primarily in Queensland and New South Wales, with large areas tied to feed crops and grazing land (6). Habitat loss affects not only iconic species like koalas but also woodland birds, reptiles, and soil invertebrates that form the backbone of ecological resilience. This erosion of habitats reduces the country’s biodiversity capital, undermining both ecological and human health. Deforestation also weakens natural carbon sinks, thereby compounding emissions from the food sector. For example, Queensland’s clearing rates over the last decade have rivalled those in tropical deforestation hotspots globally, yet receive less public attention (7,4).
Water and soil stress
Australia is one of the driest inhabited continents, making water use in food production particularly critical. Intensive cropping of soy, wheat, and sugarcane—common inputs for UPFs—draw heavily on aquifers and rivers already stressed by climate change. Livestock farming, a key upstream driver of UPFs through meat additives, milk solids, and processed oils, consumes vast volumes of water and contributes to soil compaction, erosion, and desertification in marginal grazing lands. These practices increase vulnerability to droughts and floods, deepening the feedback loop between climate extremes and agricultural systems.
The ocean connection
The burden of UPF-linked emissions does not stop on land. Land-based food systems increasingly shape Australia’s marine ecosystems. Nutrient runoff from fertilisers fuels algal blooms in river systems, eventually reaching the Great Barrier Reef, where warming waters, acidification, and pollution interact to push coral systems past ecological tipping points (8). The fisheries sector—already stressed by ocean acidification (9)—is squeezed further by supply chains geared to mass production of processed seafood products rather than local, sustainable harvests.
Social and cultural impacts
The ecological costs of UPFs intersect directly with cultural and social justice concerns. Indigenous communities, many of whom retain deep custodianship ties to land and sea, face a double burden: ecological degradation of Country and health crises from rising UPF consumption. Disconnection from traditional diets has been linked to higher rates of diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and obesity, amplifying inequality and undermining food sovereignty. Meanwhile, small farmers face an uneven playing field. Globalised UPF supply chains push monocultures and bulk commodities while squeezing out diverse, regenerative, and regionally adapted farming systems. This represents not just a loss of ecological resilience but also of cultural identity: the family farm and rural communities struggle under the weight of corporate agribusiness models.
Australia’s double bind
The paradox is clear: Australia positions itself as a food-exporting powerhouse, yet at home, Australian diets are among the most ultra-processed in the world (10). Over 40% of daily energy intake comes from UPFs, far above global averages (11). This double bind—exporting ecological costs abroad while internalising public health burdens—underscores the systemic nature of the problem. Ultra-processed foods are thus not merely a dietary concern but a lens into Australia’s broader ecological crisis. The same industrial systems that clear koala habitats, stress rivers, and bleach reefs are those that stock supermarket shelves with brightly packaged, shelf-stable goods. Reversing these trends requires recognising that ecological integrity, public health, and cultural well-being are inseparable.
Health and social justice dimensions
UPFs are typically energy-dense but nutrient-poor. Their spread contributes to chronic disease while raising health costs (12). Environmental degradation compounds risks faced by farmers, Indigenous communities, and wildlife. In a country spanning reefs, deserts, and ancient forests, the consequences are diverse yet tangible (10,13).
Pathways for Change
• Eat Closer to Nature: Choose foods with fewer processing steps and shorter supply chains. Prioritise fresh fruits, vegetables, legumes, and whole grains. Cutting back on industrial meat reduces emissions and biodiversity stress (12).
• Support Local Producers: Farmers’ markets, community-supported agriculture, and food cooperatives create resilient, low-impact supply chains while preserving biodiversity through diverse crops (14).
• Cut Food Waste: Planning, storing, and composting can lower emissions and reduce landfill methane (9).
• Demand Accountability: Transparency in sourcing and production matters. When consumers demand change, policymakers and suppliers respond (15).
• Build Community and Justice: Collective action amplifies impact: join or start food co-ops, plant community gardens, and back Indigenous food sovereignty movements. Policy shifts toward regenerative agriculture and habitat protection are essential (5).
Conclusion
Ultra-processed foods are not just a dietary choice; they shape ecosystems—from koala habitats to coral reefs. The good news is that change is possible. Every household can play a role: choose simpler and more local foods, waste less, support community food systems, and push for policies that protect both health and habitat. In doing so, Australians can help steward a healthier relationship with the land and sea that sustain us.
References
1. Ritchie H, Roser M. Food production and greenhouse gas emissions. Our World in Data. 2019. Available from: https://ourworldindata.org/food-ghg-emissions
2. Briscoe N, Kearney M, Taylor C, Wintle B. Unpacking mechanisms captured by the correlation between species richness and climate. Glob Change Biol. 2016;22(7):2425–39. doi:10.1111/gcb.13202
3. Fardet A, Rock E. Ultra-processed foods and food system sustainability: What are the links? Sustainability. 2020;12(15):6280. doi:10.3390/su12156280
4. Poore J, Nemecek T. Reducing food’s environmental impacts through producers and consumers. Science. 2018;360(6392):987–92. doi:10.1126/science.aaq0216
5. Australian Parliamentary Library. Climate and biodiversity crises. Parliament of Australia. 2025. Available from: https://www.aph.gov.au
6. Slezak M. Nearly 2m hectares of koala habitat bulldozed since 2011. The Guardian. 2025 Mar 15. Available from: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/mar/15/koala-habitat
7. Gerber P, et al. Tackling climate change through livestock. Food and Agriculture Organization. 2013. Available from: http://www.fao.org
8. The Guardian. World’s oceans fail key health check as acidity crosses threshold. The Guardian. 2025 May 21. Available from: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/may/21/oceans-acidity
9. Planetary Health Check. Executive summary. Planetary Health Check Initiative. 2025. Available from: https://planetaryhealthcheck.org
10. Machado P, Steele E, Levy R, et al. Ultra-processed foods and recommended intake levels of nutrients linked to non-communicable diseases in Australia. BMJ Open. 2019;9(8):e029544. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2019-029544
11. Monteiro C, Cannon G, Levy R, et al. Ultra-processed foods: What they are and how to identify them. Public Health Nutr. 2018;21(1):10–16. doi:10.1017/S1368980017000942
12. Pagliai G, Dinu M, Madarena M, et al. Consumption of ultra-processed foods and health status: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Br J Nutr. 2020;125(3):308–18. doi:10.1017/S0007114520002688
13. Coyle D, Huang L, Shahid M, et al. Socio-economic differences in purchases of ultra-processed foods in Australia. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2022;19(1):1–10. doi:10.1186/s12966-022-01333-7
14. da Silva D, Machado P, Levy R, et al. Nutritional, environmental and economic impacts of ultra-processed food consumption in Australia. Public Health Nutr. 2023;26(3):1–12. doi:10.1017/S1368980022002602
15. Johns Hopkins University. Connecting planetary boundaries & planetary health. Johns Hopkins University. 2025. Available from: https://www.jhu.edu
16. Gil J, et al. Environmental impacts of ultra-processed foods. Nature Food. 2023. doi:10.1038/s43016-023-00724-x
17. Colomb V, et al. AGRIBALYSE®: the French LCI database for agricultural products. OCL. 2015;22(1):D104. doi:10.1051/ocl/2015003
18. Seferidi P, et al. The neglected environmental impacts of ultra-processed foods. Lancet Planet Health. 2020;4(10):e437–e438. doi:10.1016/S2542-5196(20)30177-7
