A recent review suggests ultraprocessed foods (UPFs) can be engineered to be as addictive as tobacco. Researchers from Harvard, Duke, and the University of Michigan synthesized evidence from addiction science, public health history, and nutrition to identify how certain sensory and structural features of UPFs raise their reinforcing potential and drive compulsive consumption.
Definitions and scale
There is no single universal definition of UPFs. Many use the NOVA classification, which describes formulations of ingredients mainly of industrial origin, created through a series of industrial techniques. UPFs often contain additives and ingredients not typically found in a home kitchen, such as emulsifiers. One 2023 analysis estimated that more than 73% of foods available in the U.S. are ultraprocessed.
Why UPFs can be addictive
The review finds parallels between cigarettes and UPFs in how they are designed to maximize biological and psychological reward. Not everyone becomes “addicted,” the authors note, but a meaningful minority show addiction-like behaviors: strong cravings, loss of control, and continued consumption despite harm.
Five features that increase UPFs’ reinforcing potential:
– Delivery speed: UPFs are often low in fiber and engineered to digest and absorb quickly, delivering sugars and fats fast to the body and brain.
– Hedonic engineering: Formulations are optimized for irresistible taste and texture—flavor bursts, melt-in-your-mouth textures—that maximize reward.
– Dose optimization: Products are tuned to deliver the right balance of refined carbohydrates, added fats, salt, and flavor enhancers to stimulate reward pathways.
– Environmental ubiquity: UPFs are widely available and heavily marketed, increasing exposure and consumption.
– Deceptive reformulation (“health washing”): Labels like “low fat” or “sugar-free” can create a false impression of health while preserving addictive structures.
Biology and reinforcement
Refined carbohydrates trigger dopamine release partly via vagal pathways, while fats activate intestinal lipid sensing. The combination of refined carbs and added fats—rare in nature—is particularly potent at stimulating reward, the authors argue. Rapid delivery of these nutrients and engineered sensory cues amplify dopamine signaling and encourage repeated intake, analogous to how cigarettes were optimized to deliver nicotine quickly.
Health washing parallels
The review highlights a shared industry tactic: health washing. In tobacco, filters were marketed as protective despite offering little meaningful benefit and prompting compensatory smoking behaviors. In food, reformulations (e.g., “low fat”) often retain the same highly reinforcing ingredient combinations, maintaining metabolic harms while appearing healthier.
Policy implications
While food and tobacco are not identical, the researchers argue certain UPFs function more like optimized consumables than true food and recommend policy responses inspired by tobacco control. Suggested measures include:
– Restrictions on UPF marketing, especially to children
– Clear front-of-package labeling and tighter standards for health claims
– Limiting UPFs in institutions such as schools and hospitals
– Taxation on nutrient-poor UPFs
– Legal actions addressing misleading health claims
– Promotion of minimally processed, real foods
Experts’ perspectives
Mir Ali, MD, a bariatric surgeon, agrees UPFs are engineered to be highly appealing and supports stronger education and policy efforts. Preventive cardiology dietitian Michelle Routhenstein notes that UPFs are deliberately engineered with refined carbs, fats, salt, and flavor enhancers and that industry marketing reinforces consumption. Routhenstein and others propose tobacco-inspired policies—though not identical regulation—to reduce UPF exposure, such as marketing limits, clearer labeling, and reduced availability in public institutions.
Practical distinctions and advice
Not all processed foods are equal. Minimally processed foods—those slightly altered for storage or safety (e.g., freezing, pasteurization, fermentation)—generally pose lower risk than ultraprocessed products. The ingredient list is a useful guide: long lists with unfamiliar items, emulsifiers (soy lecithin, mono- and diglycerides), artificial flavors or colors, isolated starches or protein isolates, and multiple added sugars suggest a product is ultraprocessed.
To reduce UPF intake, experts recommend treating these items as occasional rather than daily staples and shifting the environment so minimally processed foods are the convenient default. Practical swaps include sparkling water for soda, fruit and nuts for candy, oats or plain yogurt for sweetened cereals, and batch-cooked meals instead of frozen entrees.
Equity and access
Public policy should also focus on expanding access to fresh, minimally processed foods in lower-income neighborhoods via subsidies, support for local markets and grocery stores, and school or workplace programs. Making real food affordable and convenient can reduce reliance on UPFs and address structural drivers of unhealthy eating.
Conclusion
The review concludes that confronting UPFs with seriousness similar to past tobacco control efforts—while actively promoting real foods—offers a promising path to reducing harm. Policies such as clearer labeling, advertising restrictions, taxation, institutional limits, and greater support for fresh food access could help shift consumption away from engineered, highly reinforcing products toward minimally processed, health-supporting foods.
