A new study from Harvard, the University of Michigan, and Duke University argues that ultra-processed foods (UPFs) should be regulated as aggressively as tobacco, due to striking similarities in how both industries engineer addiction and inflict widespread health damage. This isn’t just a matter of personal choice; the report suggests that UPFs are deliberately designed to bypass natural satiety signals, triggering compulsive consumption.
The Science of Addiction
Researchers highlight that UPFs—including soft drinks, packaged snacks, and many pre-made meals—share key traits with addictive substances. Like cigarettes, these foods are engineered with precise “doses” of hyper-palatable ingredients (sugar, fat, salt) to hijack reward pathways in the brain. Manufacturers optimize these formulas to maximize addiction potential, similar to how tobacco companies once fine-tuned nicotine delivery systems.
The comparison extends to marketing tactics. Just as tobacco firms historically downplayed the health risks of smoking (e.g., filters as “safe” innovations), the UPF industry employs “health washing” – labeling products as “low fat” or “sugar-free” to stall tighter regulations. The underlying principle is the same: delaying accountability while profits climb.
Why This Matters Now
The debate over UPFs has been simmering for years, but this study brings a new urgency. The researchers point out that while food is essential for survival, modern food environments make it almost impossible to avoid UPFs. The result: widespread overconsumption, obesity, and related health crises.
One clinical psychologist involved in the study, Prof. Ashley Gearhardt, notes that her patients often describe the same experience: “I feel addicted to this stuff… I used to smoke cigarettes [and] now I have the same habit but it’s with soda and doughnuts.” This isn’t just anecdotal; the study argues that UPFs meet established benchmarks for addictive substances, driving compulsive use through deliberate design.
The Call for Accountability
The authors advocate for regulatory measures mirroring those used against tobacco, including litigation, marketing restrictions, and structural interventions. The goal isn’t to ban food, but to hold the food industry accountable for producing products that exploit human biology for profit.
However, some experts caution against overreach. Prof. Martin Warren of the Quadram Institute suggests that UPFs may not be pharmacologically addictive like nicotine but instead exploit learned preferences and convenience. He argues that regulatory responses should focus on improving dietary quality and diversifying food systems.
Global Implications
The problem is particularly acute in regions with weak regulation, such as parts of Africa, where corporate interests have exploited loopholes to push UPFs aggressively. Dr. Githinji Gitahi, CEO of Amref Health Africa, warns that unchecked consumption of these foods threatens to overwhelm already strained healthcare systems.
“Without publicly led interventions, we risk health systems’ collapse.”
In conclusion, the study is a stark reminder that the modern food system isn’t always about nourishment—it’s also about engineered addiction. The comparison to tobacco is provocative, but it underscores a growing consensus: treating UPFs as mere food is no longer sufficient; they demand public health interventions commensurate with the damage they cause.
