Scoping review investigates environmental impacts of unhealthy food packaging, suggesting pathways for sustainability.
UPFs and discretionary foods have significant health impacts but their environmental impacts are understudied. We conducted a scoping review to investigate the environmental impacts of UPF-related packaging related to UPFs and discretionary foods – an important consideration given the reliance of such products on packaging. A comprehensive search was conducted in six databases: Embase, Business Source Complete, Environment Complete, Global Health, MedLine Complete and SocIndex Full text. 2424 studies were screened against pre-defined inclusion criteria. 13 studies were identified. Environmental indicators reported by studies included: greenhouse gas emissions; energy, land and water use; acidification and eutrophication; and marine pollution. Results were heterogenous which is unsurprising given the broad range of indicators, world regions and types of foods within the included studies. Despite the heterogeneity of studies, findings indicate that the impacts of packaging are significant, although likely not the largest driver of unhealthy food-related environmental harm. Impacts were partly driven by the packaging material used. We found that UPF and discretionary food packaging is associated with greenhouse gas emissions and pollution, with broader consequences for climate change, biodiversity loss, and ecosystem health. We contextualise these impacts and discuss policy solutions, including extended producer responsibility; reorienting agricultural and manufacturing policies to match health and environmental goals; improving packaging materials, and waste systems; and shifts in dietary consumption patterns. Given that UPFs and discretionary foods are largely unnecessary from a nutritional perspective, the environmental burden of their packaging represents a preventable use of resources. This review offers new insights into these impacts and highlights pathways for more sustainable production and consumption.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Anastasiou et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: