Researchers Draw Parallels With Cigarettes
Researchers from Harvard University, Duke University and the University of Michigan are calling for ultra-processed foods to be regulated in ways similar to tobacco, arguing that some products are engineered to encourage habitual overconsumption.
In a paper published in Milbank Quarterly, the authors contend that certain ultra-processed foods (UPFs) function less like traditional nourishment and more like highly optimized delivery systems designed to maximize biological and psychological reinforcement. They compare the strategies used by the food industry to those historically employed by tobacco companies, including sensory additives, rapid reward delivery, widespread accessibility and marketing tactics that can shape public perception.
Engineering for Reward and Habit
The researchers reviewed decades of evidence from addiction science, nutrition and public health history. They identified five overlapping features between cigarettes and some ultra-processed foods: dose optimization, speed of delivery, “hedonic engineering,” environmental ubiquity and health-related marketing claims.
For example, refined carbohydrates and added fats in many packaged snacks are formulated to stimulate dopamine release in the brain. According to the paper, the combination of refined carbohydrates and fats at high levels is uncommon in nature but common in industrial food production. The low fiber content of many UPFs can also accelerate digestion and absorption, potentially intensifying reward signals.
Sensory design plays a role as well. Flavor bursts that fade quickly and textures that melt easily may encourage repeated consumption. The authors argue that labeling practices such as “low-fat” or “sugar-free” can mirror past “light” cigarette branding by creating perceptions of reduced risk.
Not All Processing Is Equal
The researchers emphasize that ultra-processed foods exist on a spectrum. Minimally processed foods—such as those that are cut, dried, roasted, frozen or pasteurized—are considered lower risk. They compare these products to nicotine replacement therapies, which may contain nicotine but are designed to reduce addictive potential.
Food remains essential for life, the authors acknowledge, distinguishing it from tobacco. However, they argue that certain highly formulated products merit closer regulatory scrutiny because of their potential public health impact.
Policy Options Under Discussion
The paper outlines several possible policy responses, including legal action against misleading health claims, restrictions on advertising, taxation of nutrient-poor ultra-processed foods, clearer labeling of processing levels and reducing the presence of such products in schools and hospitals.
The researchers note that tobacco regulation significantly reduced smoking rates in the United States and reshaped cultural attitudes toward cigarettes. They suggest that similarly comprehensive public health approaches could address rising diet-related diseases, while also promoting access to minimally processed and traditionally prepared foods.
Identifying Ultra-Processed Products
Consumers can often identify ultra-processed foods by reviewing ingredient lists. Long lists with unfamiliar additives, emulsifiers, artificial flavors, isolated starches or multiple forms of added sugar may indicate a highly industrial formulation.
The authors conclude that meaningful change would likely require structural policy measures rather than voluntary industry adjustments, framing the debate as part of a broader conversation about public health, regulation and consumer protection.