Food for Thought: Are Flavourings in Processed Foods a Hidden Driver of Agricultural Degradation?
- Lewis Edmunds
- Nov 29
- 5 min read
Introduction
The rise of Ultra-Processed Foods (UPFs) in Global food systems is an emerging planetary issue with negative impacts on the environment1 and public health.2 The Nova classification defines UPFs as formulations of chemically manipulated cheap ingredients such as modified starches and protein isolates. These are made palatable by using combinations of flavours, colours, emulsifiers, thickeners and other additives. The manufacture of UPFs account for between 17–39% of food related energy use, 36–45% of biodiversity loss and up to one-third of greenhouse gas emissions. Health issues linked to UPF consumption place an increased burden on healthcare systems which in turn also leads to higher energy consumption and Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions. Due to the broadness of the UPF concept, not all UPFs will individually have such impacts which may hamper adoption in policy measures. This piece will outline the potential role of non-culinary additives common to Ultra-Processed Foods (UPF) in a 'Flavor Feedback Loop' (FFL) and explain how the FFL could indirectly drive irresponsible agricultural practices.
The Flavour Feedback Loop
The hypothesised FFL is as follows. Firstly, UPF products create a demand for monoculture crops of limited variety (such as corn, wheat and cane sugars) with the highest yield and durability to lower costs. The priorisation of yield comes at the expense of nutritious compounds that signal flavour, exacerbated by the limited crop variety of these foods and methods of processing common to UPF products that destroy flavour signalling nutrients. Low-cost, synthetic additives such as flavourings are used to ‘mask,’ the bland or unpleasant taste of the nutritionally inferior base ingredients, making UPFs palatable and potentially addictive. FFL effectively indicates a hidden ‘flavor subsidy’ that guarantees a profitable market for the cheapest, lowest-quality agricultural output.
Indicators of the FFL
Recognising the negative effects of an FFL could offer a path for agriculture which is better for soil and human health. By restricting the use of flavourings in products that are nutrient poor, this could create an incentive for agriculture practices that produce higher quality foods. Without the option to add flavours to products, companies are incentivised to adopt more responsible agriculture methods such as regenerative agriculture (RA). RA involves the use of practices such as crop rotation to improve soil health and nutritional and flavour profile of foods. Regenerative agriculture practices are posited as a means to address the most harmful effects of climate change while maintaining outputs to feed a global population.
Policy Recommendations
The Flavor Compensation Index (FCI) is a potential interventionary metric designed to help policymakers and consumers quickly assess the true quality of food, moving beyond simple caloric or macronutrient counts. The FCI works as a ratio, measuring a
food’s reliance on synthetic flavor additives, the Synthetic Flavor Load (SFL) against Nutrient and Phytochemical Density (NPD). A low FCI, such as 0.1 for a high-quality plain yogurt, would indicate high natural nutrient value and minimal synthetic enhancement, designating it as a policy-preferred product. Conversely, a high FCI (e.g., 5.5 for a highly processed, flavored drink) signifies that the food's palatability is largely compensated by additives, reflecting a low natural nutritional baseline. An FCI could offer a simple, effective proxy for complex ultra-processing and directly identifies products that exploit the Flavor-Flavor Learning (FFL) mechanism, offering a new regulatory tool to promote planetary and public health.
The use of regulatory controls, such as restrictions on pricing, marketing, and distribution, could powerfully complement the Flavor Compensation Index (FCI) by translating the FCI's technical assessment of food quality into actionable policy. These strategies have proven effective in regulating alcohol and tobacco substances despite industry pushback8. Pricing controls can use a high FCI score as the criterion for implementing higher taxes on synthetically-compensated products while offering subsidies for low-FCI, nutrient-dense foods, thereby restructuring market incentives. Similarly, marketing restrictions can target high-FCI products by limiting their advertising to vulnerable populations, and distribution controls can prohibit their sale in public institutions like schools. This integrated approach leverages the FCI's precision to apply regulatory weight, while ensuring that strategic policy exemptions do not adversely affect low-socioeconomic status (SES) individuals ability to source affordable nutritious food12.
Conclusion
Ultimately, the Flavour Feedback Loop (FFL) is a potential driver of agricultural degradation. The FFL asserts that additives which modify flavour, such as flavourings, colour and emulsifiers, might systematically subsidise unsustainable farming practices by eliminating the market penalty for producing flavorless, low-quality ingredients. Shifting focus from the broad category of ultra-processed foods (UPF) towards the additives used in these products could shed light on the environmental impacts of UPFs as a general category. To reverse this degradation, policy must shift the economic advantage away from chemical compensation and towards agricultural integrity. A Flavour Compensation Index is proposed as a potential pathway for reducing the greatest environmental impacts associated with UPFs.
Bibliography
1. Monteiro, C.A. et al. (2025) Ultra-processed foods and human health: the main thesis and the evidence, The Lancet [Preprint]. Available at:
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(25)01565-X.
2. Prescott SL, D’Adamo CR, Holton KF, Ortiz S, Overby N, Logan AC. Beyond Plants: The Ultra-Processing of Global Diets Is Harming the Health of People, Places, and Planet. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2023 July 27;20(15):6461.
3. Anastasiou K, Baker P, Hadjikakou M, Hendrie GA, Lawrence M. A conceptual framework for understanding the environmental impacts of ultra-processed foods and implications for sustainable food systems. J Clean Prod. 2022 Sept 25;368:133155.
4. Tobi R, Buszard S, Brinsden DH. Ultra-processed foods: A new frontier for investors in food businesses? 2024;
5. Kaur G, Abugu M, Tieman D. The dissection of tomato flavor: biochemistry, genetics, and omics. Front Plant Sci. 2023 June 6;14:1144113.
6. John DA, Babu GR. Lessons From the Aftermaths of Green Revolution on Food System and Health. Front Sustain Food Syst [Internet]. 2021 Feb 22 [cited 2025 Nov 9];5. Available from:
https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/sustainable-food-systems/articles/10.3389/fsufs.2021.64 4559/full
7. Monteiro, C.A., Martínez-Steele, E. and Cannon, G. (2024) “Reasons to avoid ultra-processed foods,” BMJ, 384, p. q439. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.q439.
8. Lustig RH. Ultraprocessed Food: Addictive, Toxic, and Ready for Regulation. Nutrients. 2020 Nov 5;12(11):3401.
9. Neumann NJ, Fasshauer M. Added flavors: potential contributors to body weight gain and obesity? BMC Med. 2022 Nov 1;20(1):417.
10. Feliziani, G., Bordoni, L. and Gabbianelli, R. (2025) “Regenerative Organic Agriculture and Human Health: The Interconnection Between Soil, Food Quality, and Nutrition,” Antioxidants, 14(5), p. 530. Available at: https://doi.org/10.3390/antiox14050530.
11. Kharel P, Sahoo S. 2023. Advancing Sustainable Agriculture: A Comprehensive Review of Organic Farming Methods and Their Implications for a Resilient Future. J Food Chem Nanotechnol 9(S1): S335-S341. Available at:
https://foodchemistryjournal.com/2023/11/06/advancing-sustainable-agriculture-a-comprehen sive-review-of-organic-farming-methods-and-their-implications-for-a-resilient-future/
12. Rampalli, K.K. et al. (2023) “Why understanding food choice is crucial to transform food systems for human and planetary health,” BMJ Global Health, 8(5). Available at: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjgh-2022-010876.
