A new study has found that ultra-processed foods (UPFs) share more similarities with cigarettes than with natural foods such as fruits and vegetables...READ FULL; FROM THE SOURCE.
UPFs are industrially formulated food products that typically contain five or more ingredients, including additives, preservatives, sweeteners, emulsifiers, artificial colours, and flavours. Common examples include soft drinks and packaged snacks such as crisps and biscuits.
The study, published on Tuesday in the healthcare journal The Milbank Quarterly, examined evidence from nutrition, addiction science, and public health history to compare UPFs with cigarettes.
Its findings showed that the manufacturing processes behind UPFs closely resemble those used in cigarette production, with both relying on deliberate engineering techniques developed to encourage “compulsive consumption”.
According to the research, many UPFs are produced to carefully control the levels of certain ingredients in ways that heighten their appeal and promote overconsumption.
“UPFs are not simply sources of nutrients but intentionally designed, highly engineered, and manipulated products that are optimised for pleasure,” the study stated.
The researchers, drawn from three US universities — Harvard, the University of Michigan, and Duke University — recommended that ultra-processed foods be subjected to regulatory measures similar to those long applied to tobacco products.
They noted that, unlike tobacco, food is essential for human survival, making regulation of UPFs even more pressing, as avoiding the modern food system is largely impractical.
The study also argued that while some UPFs are easily identifiable, others are less obvious. Products such as packaged granola bars, sports drinks, protein bars, and fruit-flavoured yoghurt are often marketed with claims like “low fat” or “sugar-free,” which can mislead consumers.
According to the researchers, these marketing strategies amount to “health washing,” a practice they likened to the tobacco industry’s promotion of cigarette filters in the 1950s to downplay health risks.
Ashley Gearhardt of the University of Michigan, one of the authors, suggested that harmful ultra-processed foods should be clearly identified and treated differently from regular foods, just as alcoholic drinks are separated from non-alcoholic beverages.
The research argued that ultra processed foods should be judged not only by their nutritional value but also as products deliberately engineered to trigger repeated consumption.
The study pointed to tobacco control measures such as legal action, advertising limits and structural reforms as a useful guide for reducing the harm linked to these foods.
The authors also argued that responsibility should shift from personal choice to holding food companies accountable for the health risks of UPFs.
However, Martin Warren, chief scientific officer at the Quadram Institute, a specialist food research centre, criticised the study for “overreaching” the similarities between ultra-processed foods and tobacco.
He said it is unclear whether these foods are truly addictive like nicotine in cigarettes, or if their harm comes from replacing healthier whole foods, suggesting that regulation should focus on diet quality and improvements to the food system rather than simply copying tobacco controls.
“This distinction matters, because it influences whether regulatory responses should mirror tobacco control or instead prioritise dietary quality, reformulation standards, and food system diversification,” he said.
