Washington: Ultra-processed foods (UPFs) have more in common with cigarettes than with natural foods such as fruits and vegetables, and should therefore be subject to much stricter regulation, according to a new academic study.
The report, authored by researchers from Harvard University, the University of Michigan, and Duke University, argues that UPFs are deliberately engineered to promote addiction and excessive consumption, mirroring the strategies long used by the tobacco industry.
The researchers highlight strong parallels between cigarettes and UPFs in their production processes, health impacts, and the way manufacturers optimise their products to deliver rapid, repeated stimulation of the brain’s reward pathways.
UPFs are defined as industrially manufactured food products that often contain artificial colours, flavours, emulsifiers, and other additives. The category includes widely consumed items such as soft drinks, packaged snacks, crisps, biscuits, and sweets, which are now readily available worldwide.
The paper draws on evidence from addiction science, nutrition research, and public health history, and was published on 3 February in the healthcare journal Milbank Quarterly.
The authors argue that UPFs meet established benchmarks used to identify addictive substances, as they contain design features that can drive compulsive consumption. However, they stress that the health harms linked to UPFs are significant regardless of whether they are formally classified as addictive.
The study also criticises industry marketing practices, describing claims such as ‘low fat’ or ‘sugar free’ as a form of ‘health washing.’ The authors compare these tactics to the promotion of cigarette filters in the 1950s, which were advertised as safety innovations but ultimately offered little real health benefit and delayed effective regulation.
The researchers conclude that many UPFs pose public health risks comparable to tobacco and therefore warrant regulatory responses of similar strength. They suggest that lessons from tobacco control, including litigation, marketing restrictions, and broader structural interventions, could help reduce UPF-related harm.
Central to their argument is a call for public health strategies to move away from blaming individual consumers and instead hold the food industry accountable.
Professor Ashley Gearhardt of the University of Michigan, a clinical psychologist specialising in addiction and one of the study’s authors, said her patients frequently draw direct comparisons between UPFs and cigarettes.
The Professor noted that some people who previously smoked now describe the same cravings and sense of loss of control with products such as soda and doughnuts, despite knowing the damage to their health.
Gearhardt said debates around UPFs follow a familiar pattern seen in addiction research, where responsibility is initially placed on individuals with advice to consume in moderation. Over time, she said, evidence accumulates showing how industries manipulate product design to make substances more difficult to resist.
While acknowledging that food, unlike tobacco, is essential for survival, the authors argue that this makes regulation even more urgent, as people cannot realistically opt out of the modern food environment.
Gearhardt added that harmful UPFs could be clearly distinguished from other food products, just as alcoholic drinks are separated from non-alcoholic beverages.
Not all experts fully support the comparison. Professor Martin Warren, Chief Scientific Officer at the Quadram Institute, a specialist food research centre, said that although there are similarities between UPFs and tobacco, the authors risk going too far.
Prof Warren questioned whether UPFs are intrinsically addictive in a pharmacological sense, like nicotine, or whether they primarily exploit learned preferences, reward conditioning, and convenience.
The Chief also raised the issue of whether the negative health effects associated with UPFs are caused by their ingredients or by the fact that they displace whole foods rich in fibre, micronutrients, and protective phytochemicals.
The Professor stated that this distinction is important because it influences whether regulation should mirror tobacco control or instead focus on improving dietary quality, reformulating products, and diversifying food systems.
Dr. Githinji Gitahi, Chief Executive of Amref Health Africa, noted that the study reinforces growing public health concerns across Africa. He warned that multinational corporations have benefited from a “profitable nexus” of weak government regulation and shifting consumption habits.
According to Gitahi, this trend is placing new and preventable pressure on already overstretched health systems, and without strong public-led interventions to address rising non-communicable diseases, health systems risk collapse.
ALSO READ | Verdi-led walkout freezes public transport across Germany
