- Researchers at Harvard University, Duke University and the University of Michigan are calling for ultra-processed foods to be regulated in the same way as cigarettes, saying they are designed for habitual overconsumption.
- This paper compares tobacco and ultra-processed foods, focusing on the use of additives, reward mechanisms, and marketing strategies that manipulate biological and psychological responses.
- Researchers say certain ultra-processed foods are more like processed consumables than real food, and call for policies that encourage minimal processing and limit misleading health claims.
Much has already been said about ultra-processed foods and their potential impact on human health. Food & Wine has been avidly tracking the latest scientific findings showing that ultra-processed foods may be fueling the global pandemic. global health crisisour heart disease riskeven change your hunger cues. These findings, and many others like them, have researchers looking for something radically possible: regulating ultra-processed foods in the same way as tobacco.
“Tobacco and UPF are not just natural products, but highly engineered delivery systems specifically designed to maximize biological and psychological reinforcement and habitual overuse,” a team of researchers from Harvard University, Duke University, and the University of Michigan say in a new paper published in the same journal. milbank quarterly magazine. “Both industries have used similar strategies to increase the appeal of their products, circumvent regulation, and shape public perception, including adding sensory additives, accelerating reward offerings, expanding access to context, and deploying health-cleansing claims. Collectively, these design features hijack human biology, undermine individual agency, and significantly contribute to disease and health care costs.”
The evidence behind cigarette comparisons
To reach their conclusion, the researchers synthesized decades of research from the history of addiction science, nutrition, epidemiology, and public health to examine how cigarettes are designed to maximize nicotine delivery and compare the two. They focused on five major areas with substantial overlap, including dose optimization, speed of delivery, “hedonic engineering” (aka designing irresistibly delicious foods), environmental ubiquity, and something called “health cleansing” to make it all sound good for you.
In their research review, the similarities are quite clear. Like cigarettes, ultra-processed foods are tweaked to provide just the right amount of sugar (think a quick hit of soda) or a careful balance of fat and carbohydrates in potato chips.
“Refined carbohydrates stimulate dopamine release via the vagus nerve, whereas fats stimulate dopamine release through lipid sensing in the intestine,” the researchers wrote. “…UPF, containing high levels of refined carbohydrates and added fats, are some of the most powerful beneficial substances in the modern diet. Remarkably, this combination of refined carbohydrates and fats is almost never found in nature.”
When the feel-good chemicals are rapidly delivered to the brain, these foods can become addictive, similar to cigarettes. Researchers point out that while cigarettes are designed to release nicotine within seconds, ultra-processed foods contain little or no fiber and are designed for rapid digestion and absorption, making it easier for the body to process sugars and fats more quickly.
The paper also briefly explains why it’s so hard to stick to just one tasty chip, thanks to sensory design. They explain that ultra-processed foods have a deliberate burst of flavor that disappears quickly and a melt-in-your-mouth texture, all of which provide more dopamine and encourage the feeling of “Okay, one more thing.”
The constant availability of ultra-processed foods and the marketing that frequently “health-washes” them with labels like “low fat” and “no added sugar” (similar to how cigarettes are marketed as “light”) make it difficult to overlook the similarities.
Understanding the spectrum of ultra-processed foods
Researchers note that not all ultra-processed foods are created equal, and risks vary depending on the ingredients and degree of processing. They added that “minimally processed” foods are low risk. As food and wine explained earlierThe term “minimal processing” includes “removal of inedible or unnecessary parts, cutting, drying, grinding, grinding, fractionating, roasting, boiling, pasteurization, refrigeration, freezing, filling into containers, vacuum packaging, and non-alcoholic fermentation.” The researchers liken this category to “nicotine replacement therapies, such as transdermal patches, which often contain more nicotine than a single cigarette, but with minimal potential for addiction.”
At the end of the paper, the researchers acknowledge that food and tobacco are not the same, pointing out that food is essential to life. However, they argue that certain ultra-processed products function more like highly optimized consumables than traditional foods, and recommend that public health policy reflect that reality.
How to spot ultra-processed foods on the label
Ultra-processed foods don’t usually seem extreme and are often promoted as convenient, nutritionally fortified, and even “better for you.” On the front of the package, statements like “low fat,” “high protein,” and “no added sugar” can be misleading. The ingredient list is usually the clearest place to see how a product is actually industrially formulated. The more artificial and unfamiliar the ingredients, the more likely the product is ultra-processed.
Red flags include::
- Long ingredient list (often 5-7 or more items)
- Foods you wouldn’t prepare at home
- Emulsifiers such as soy lecithin, mono- and diglycerides
- artificial flavors and colors
- isolated starch or isolated protein
- Added sugar in multiple forms
What may be included in the regulation of ultra-processed foods?
“Tobacco provides a warning, and tobacco control provides a source of hope. It is easy to forget how deeply integrated tobacco was once into American life, marketed as a symbol of modernity, embedded in social rituals, and celebrated as an economic boon,” they write. But the regulations caused U.S. smoking rates to plummet, “shifting cultural perceptions of tobacco and eroding trust in the industry.”
But unlike cigarettes, we already have the answer, the researchers pointed out. “Minimally, traditionally processed foods have sustained human health for thousands of years. Legal action against harmful or misleading health claims, restrictions on UPF advertising, taxation of nutritionally poor UPF, significant reductions in UPF in schools and hospitals, and clearer labeling of ultra-processed products could all be next steps,” the researchers wrote. He also said that asking companies to change is not enough. “Policies that tackle UPF with the same seriousness that was once applied to tobacco while actively promoting real food offer the most promising path out of the current crisis.”
