BGU (Israel) : Reducing ultra-processed foods may come at environmental cost
Environmental benefits from reducing ultra-processed foods may be offset by increased protein consumption, particularly from animal sources, newly published research reveals. The 2025–2030 Dietary Guidelines for Americans could increase greenhouse gas emissions, land use, and fertilizer use relative to the current Mean American Diet, according to a new study by researchers at Israeli and American institutions.
Published in PNAS, the study examined the environmental consequences of the new guidelines by modeling greenhouse gas emissions, freshwater use, land use, and nitrogen fertilizer use associated with recommended dietary changes.
“Surprisingly, we found that eliminating ultra-processed foods could reduce environmental impacts. However, the recommendation to increase and even double portion consumption could increase impacts substantially if protein comes from animal sources,” said Tamar Makov, from the Management Department as well as the School of Sustainability and Climate Change at Ben-Gurion University of the Negev (BGU).
The other researchers authoring the study include Alon Shepon, from the Steinhardt Museum of Natural History and the Department of Public Policy at Tel Aviv University; Gidon Eshel, from the Department of Environmental Physics at Bard College; and David L. Katz from Diet ID, a private company.
The Dietary Guidelines for Americans, updated every five years, help shape U.S. food policy and influence programs ranging from school meals and military food services to hospital nutrition initiatives. As a result, their recommendations carry significant health, economic, and environmental implications.
The researchers examined two key recommendations in the new guidelines: reducing ultra-processed foods and increasing protein intake. They compared the resulting environmental impacts with the current Mean American Diet.
Their analysis found that eliminating ultra-processed foods could produce substantial environmental benefits. Ultra-processed foods account for more than half of calories in the average American diet and contribute 40% to 58% of its environmental impacts.
However, the researchers found that these gains would be largely offset by the environmental costs associated with increased protein consumption. They found that adherence to the new guidelines could increase greenhouse gas emissions, land use, and nitrogen fertilizer use by as much as 32% compared with the environmental savings achieved by removing ultra-processed foods. Water use was the sole exception, declining by between 7% and 19% relative to the current Mean American Diet.
Additionally, diets rich in plant-based proteins consistently generated lower environmental impacts than equally protein-rich diets based primarily on animal foods.
“As our analysis shows, the average American already consumes enough protein,” BGU’s Makov explained. “Eating even more protein, especially from animal sources, would needlessly add environmental burdens. Revising the guidelines to align with established science and prioritizing plant-based food over animal-based ones would enhance environmental integrity, public health, and food affordability in the U.S.”
The findings suggest that reducing ultra-processed foods alone may not improve the environmental performance of American diets if those foods are replaced primarily with animal-based proteins. The researchers conclude that reducing both ultra-processed and animal-source foods, while prioritizing plant-based alternatives, could substantially reduce environmental impacts while supporting public health and food affordability.
