Ultra-Processed Foods Demand Tobacco-Style Regulation, Landmark Study Urges
A groundbreaking academic report has concluded that ultra-processed foods (UPFs) should be regulated with a similar level of public health scrutiny as tobacco products, due to their engineered addictive properties and significant health risks. The study, published in the healthcare journal The Milbank Quarterly, draws direct parallels between the manufacturing and marketing strategies of UPFs and cigarettes.
Engineered for Addiction and Consumption
Researchers from Harvard University, the University of Michigan, and Duke University argue that UPFs and cigarettes are both deliberately engineered to encourage addiction and maximise consumption. The paper highlights how manufacturers optimise the "doses" of ingredients and the speed at which they activate the brain's reward pathways, creating products designed for compulsive use.
"Many UPFs share more characteristics with cigarettes than with minimally processed fruits or vegetables and therefore warrant regulation commensurate with the significant public health risks they pose," the authors state conclusively.
Defining the Ultra-Processed Food Category
Ultra-processed foods are industrially manufactured products that often contain emulsifiers, artificial colourings, and flavours. This broad category includes:
- Soft drinks and fizzy beverages
- Packaged snacks like crisps and biscuits
- Mass-produced bread and breakfast cereals
- Ready meals and desserts
- Fast food items
- Many commercially produced baby and toddler foods
These products typically contain higher levels of salt, sugar, and fat while offering lower nutritional value, with deficiencies in protein, essential vitamins, and minerals necessary for healthy development.
Health Washing and Marketing Parallels
The study identifies concerning similarities in how both industries have used marketing to deflect regulatory attention. Researchers point to "health washing" claims on UPF packaging—such as "low fat" or "sugar free"—as modern equivalents to the 1950s cigarette filter advertising that promised protection while offering "little meaningful benefit."
Professor Ashley Gearhardt of the University of Michigan, a clinical psychologist specialising in addiction and one of the study's authors, notes that her patients frequently draw the same connections. "They would say, 'I feel addicted to this stuff, I crave it – I used to smoke cigarettes [and] now I have the same habit but it's with soda and doughnuts. I know it's killing me; I want to quit, but I can't,'" she reports.
The Addiction Debate and Regulatory Implications
While acknowledging that food, unlike tobacco, is essential for survival, the authors argue this distinction makes regulatory action even more necessary because consumers cannot simply opt out of the modern food environment. They suggest that harmful UPFs could be distinguished from other foodstuffs in a manner similar to how alcoholic beverages are regulated separately from other drinks.
The paper contends that UPFs meet "established benchmarks" for substances that should be considered addictive, with design features that "can drive compulsive use." The authors call for public health efforts to "shift from individual responsibility to food industry accountability" and suggest lessons from tobacco regulation—including litigation, marketing restrictions, and structural interventions—could guide harm reduction strategies for UPFs.
Academic Caution and Global Health Concerns
Some experts urge caution regarding the direct tobacco comparison. Professor Martin Warren, chief scientific officer at the Quadram Institute food research centre, suggests the authors risk "overreach" and questions whether UPFs are "intrinsically addictive in a pharmacological sense" or primarily exploit "learned preferences, reward conditioning and convenience."
He emphasises the importance of determining whether health effects stem from UPF contents or because they displace "whole foods rich in fibre, micronutrients and protective phytochemicals." This distinction, he argues, influences whether regulatory responses should mirror tobacco control or focus on dietary quality and food system reform.
The study's implications extend globally, particularly to regions with weaker regulatory frameworks. Dr Githinji Gitahi, chief executive of Amref Health Africa, warns that "corporates have found a comfortable, and profitable, nexus: weak government regulation on harmful products and a changing pattern of consumption" across Africa, placing preventable pressures on already stretched health systems and risking potential collapse without intervention.
The research adds substantial weight to growing calls for a fundamental re-evaluation of how societies regulate the food industry, particularly concerning products scientifically linked to obesity, cancer, type 2 diabetes, and cardiovascular disease through both nutritional composition and potential addictive properties.
