A new review from researchers at Harvard, Duke, and the University of Michigan argues that many ultraprocessed foods (UPFs) behave like carefully engineered delivery systems and may be addictive for a meaningful minority of people. Drawing on addiction science, public-health history, and nutrition research, the team identifies features that increase the reinforcing potential of both cigarettes and UPFs and outlines implications for policy and individual choices.
What are ultraprocessed foods?
There isn’t a single universal definition, but researchers commonly use the NOVA framework. UPFs are industrial formulations made from ingredients rarely used in home cooking, often including additives, emulsifiers, isolated starches or proteins, artificial flavors, and long ingredient lists. A 2023 estimate found that over 73% of foods available in the U.S. food supply fall into the ultraprocessed category.
Why UPFs can be especially reinforcing
The review highlights five characteristics that raise UPFs’ potential to trigger strong, repetitive eating:
– Delivery speed: UPFs are often low in fiber and designed to be digested and absorbed rapidly, speeding fats and refined carbohydrates to the body and brain.
– Hedonic engineering: Flavors and textures are crafted for intense, short-lived pleasure—think melting, crunchy, or highly flavored experiences.
– Dose optimization: Combinations such as refined carbs plus added fats are tuned to produce maximal reward; these concentrated pairings are uncommon in unprocessed foods.
– Environmental ubiquity: UPFs are widely available and aggressively marketed, increasing exposure and consumption.
– Deceptive reformulation: Labels like “low fat” or “sugar-free” can suggest reduced harm while preserving the product’s reinforcing qualities.
Biological mechanisms
Refined carbohydrates can trigger dopamine-related reward signaling through vagal pathways, while fats activate intestinal lipid-sensing systems; both contribute to a sense of reward. When these nutrients are delivered quickly—as UPFs are engineered to do—their effects are amplified, producing cravings, loss of control, and continued intake despite negative consequences for some people. The reviewers compare this rapid delivery to how cigarettes are designed to deliver nicotine efficiently.
Industry parallels with tobacco
The authors note historical parallels: tobacco companies marketed product changes as “safer” while preserving addictive properties, and consumers often compensated (for example, by inhaling more deeply). Food manufacturers similarly promote reformulated or labeled products that can appear healthier while retaining the same combinations of ingredients that drive strong desire to eat.
Policy implications
While food and tobacco are not identical, the review argues that some UPFs function more like optimized consumables than traditional foods and warrant policy responses inspired by tobacco control. Suggested measures include:
– Restricting marketing to children
– Clear front-of-package labels that identify ultraprocessing
– Stricter rules on health claims and deceptive reformulation
– Limits on UPFs in schools and hospitals
– Taxes on nutrient-poor UPFs
– Legal action against misleading claims
– Policies that expand access to minimally processed foods (subsidies, support for local markets, institutional procurement changes)
Experts’ perspectives
Mir Ali, MD, a bariatric surgeon, described UPFs as engineered to be highly appealing and supported the study’s conclusions. Preventive cardiology dietitian Michelle Routhenstein noted that not everyone becomes “addicted,” but many people do display addiction-like patterns. Both experts favor policies that reduce marketing exposure, improve labeling, and reduce UPFs in institutions while increasing access to fresh, minimally processed options.
Practical distinctions and tips
Not all processing is equal. Minimally processed foods—pasteurized milk, frozen vegetables, or fermented foods—are altered mainly for safety, storage, or convenience and pose fewer risks than UPFs.
Signs a product may be ultraprocessed:
– Long ingredient lists with unfamiliar additives (emulsifiers, mono- and diglycerides)
– Multiple types of added sugar
– Artificial flavors or colors
– Isolated starches or protein isolates
Individual strategies:
– Treat UPFs as optional rather than daily staples, especially sugary drinks, packaged sweets, chips, fast food, and heavily processed frozen meals.
– Make minimally processed foods the convenient default: emphasize fiber-rich carbs, whole proteins, and healthy fats to improve satiety and blunt cravings.
– Simple swaps: sparkling water for soda, fruit and nuts for candy, oats or plain yogurt for sweetened cereals, batch-cooked meals instead of frozen entrees.
Conclusion
The review calls for public-health actions that take UPFs seriously, drawing lessons from tobacco control while recognizing differences between food and cigarettes. Combining stronger policy measures with better access to affordable, minimally processed food could reduce reliance on UPFs and address structural drivers of unhealthy eating.