Researchers from Harvard, Duke, and the University of Michigan reviewed addiction science, nutrition research, and public health history and concluded that many ultraprocessed foods (UPFs) are deliberately formulated to maximize reward and encourage compulsive eating—sometimes in ways comparable to how cigarettes were optimized to sustain tobacco use.
What counts as ultraprocessed
There is no single universally accepted definition, but many researchers use the NOVA system, which groups products made mostly from industrial ingredients and transformed by multiple manufacturing steps. UPFs often contain additives and ingredients not normally used in home cooking (for example, some emulsifiers and isolates). A 2023 analysis estimated that more than 73% of food items sold in the U.S. fall into the ultraprocessed category.
Why some UPFs promote compulsive consumption
The review argues that UPFs share design goals with addictive products: they deliver fast, intense sensory reward and are presented in ways that increase exposure and repeat use. While most people do not develop clinically defined addiction, a significant minority show addiction-like behaviors—intense cravings, difficulty controlling intake, and continued consumption despite harm.
Five design features that raise UPFs’ reinforcing potential
– Rapid nutrient delivery: Many UPFs are low in fiber and formulated to break down and absorb quickly, sending concentrated sugars and fats to the body and brain in a short time window.
– Hedonic engineering: Manufacturers optimize taste and texture—think explosive flavor hits or melt-in-your-mouth textures—to maximize pleasure and encourage repeat bites.
– Dose optimization: Recipes are tuned to an effective balance of refined carbohydrates, added fats, salt, and flavor enhancers that stimulate brain reward pathways.
– Environmental ubiquity: UPFs are widely available, inexpensive, and heavily promoted, increasing both exposure and habitual consumption.
– Deceptive reformulation (“health washing”): Products are often relabeled as “low fat,” “reduced sugar,” or “light” while preserving the same engineered combinations that sustain reward and metabolic harm.
Biology and reinforcement
Refined carbohydrates can trigger dopamine-related signaling partly through gut-to-brain pathways, while fats engage intestinal lipid sensors. When refined carbs and added fats are combined—a pairing relatively uncommon in whole foods—the resulting sensory and metabolic signals are particularly potent at activating reward circuits. Fast delivery of those nutrients and engineered sensory cues can amplify dopamine responses and reinforce repeated intake in a way that resembles how cigarette design facilitates rapid nicotine delivery.
Parallels in industry tactics
The review highlights how both the tobacco and processed food industries have used similar public-facing tactics: repositioning products as safer through minor reformulations or marketing, while leaving the core reinforcing features intact. For example, early cigarette “filters” were marketed as protective without reducing addictive potential; similarly, reformulated snack and meal products can appear healthier while maintaining the combinations that drive overconsumption.
Policy implications and recommended actions
The authors suggest borrowing some strategies from tobacco control—adapted to the differences between food and tobacco—to reduce UPF-related harm. Possible measures include: restrictions on marketing to children, clearer front-of-package labels and tighter standards for health claims, limits on UPFs served in schools and hospitals, taxes on nutrient-poor UPFs, legal actions against misleading health claims, and stronger public programs that promote affordable, minimally processed foods.
Voices from clinicians and nutrition experts
Clinicians and dietitians quoted in the review emphasize that UPFs are engineered to maximize palatability and reward. Bariatric surgeon Mir Ali, MD, supports stronger public education and policy responses. Preventive cardiology dietitian Michelle Routhenstein and others note that deliberate combinations of refined carbs, fats, salt, and flavor enhancers, reinforced by marketing, drive consumption—and that measures inspired by tobacco control (though not identical regulation) could help reduce exposure.
Practical distinctions and individual strategies
Not all processed foods are equally risky. Minimally processed items—foods altered only for preservation or safety, such as frozen fruits, pasteurized milk, or fermented vegetables—generally carry lower risk than ultraprocessed products. A quick ingredient-check helps: long lists of unfamiliar additives, emulsifiers (soy lecithin, mono- and diglycerides), artificial flavors or colors, isolated starches or proteins, and multiple added sugars are common signs of UPFs.
To cut UPF intake, experts recommend treating these items as occasional treats rather than daily staples and designing environments so that minimally processed foods are the convenient default. Simple swaps include sparkling water for soda, fruit and nuts for candy, oats or plain yogurt in place of sweetened cereals, and preparing batch-cooked meals rather than relying on frozen entrees.
Equity and access
The review stresses that policy responses must address structural barriers. Expanding access to affordable, fresh, minimally processed foods in lower-income neighborhoods—through subsidies, support for local markets and grocery stores, and food programs in schools and workplaces—can reduce dependence on UPFs and help address broader drivers of diet-related disease.
Conclusion
The authors conclude that taking UPFs seriously—by limiting marketing, tightening labeling and health claims, reducing availability in public institutions, using fiscal tools, pursuing legal remedies, and investing in fresh food access—could shift consumption away from engineered, highly reinforcing products toward minimally processed foods that support better health.
