Ultra-Processed Foods: Should They Be Regulated Like Tobacco?

A growing body of research suggests a concerning parallel between the addictive potential of ultra-processed foods (UPFs) and that of tobacco, prompting calls for similar levels of regulation. A new study, published in the Milbank Quarterly, argues that UPFs are not simply nutritional concerns, but rather industrially engineered products designed to maximize consumption, potentially leading to addiction.

Researchers from Harvard, Duke, and the University of Michigan conducted the study, comparing the design, marketing, and distribution strategies of tobacco and UPFs. They found that both industries employ tactics to heighten reward, drive compulsive consumption, and overcome individual willpower. “Some ultra-processed foods have crossed a line,” explains Ashley Gearhardt, a psychology professor at the University of Michigan and one of the study’s authors. She elaborates that products like fizzy drinks, sweets, and fast food are engineered to optimize craving, rapid intake, and repeated use – characteristics more akin to cigarettes than to natural foods.

This isn’t simply a matter of poor nutrition, the researchers contend. The study highlights how both tobacco and UPFs begin as natural substances with limited addictive potential in their unprocessed forms. However, through industrial re-engineering, they are transformed into products that exploit the body’s reward pathways. This process involves optimizing “doses” of addictive ingredients and manipulating the speed at which these products impact the brain, mirroring strategies historically used by the tobacco industry.

The implications for public health are significant. The World Health Organization (WHO) warns that diets rich in UPFs are increasing globally and are associated with a higher risk of several diet-related diseases, including heart disease, cancers, metabolic disease, diabetes, and obesity. The study authors emphasize that recognizing the role of industry in driving these health outcomes is crucial, shifting the focus from individual blame to corporate accountability.

What Defines Ultra-Processed Foods?

UPFs are characterized by industrial manufacturing processes and often contain emulsifiers, artificial coloring, and flavors. Common examples include supermarket-ready meals, frozen pizzas, sweetened breakfast cereals, biscuits, sausages, ice cream, chicken nuggets, fish fingers, and instant noodles. These foods are designed for convenience and palatability, often at the expense of nutritional value.

A History of Regulation: Lessons from Tobacco

The researchers point to the history of tobacco regulation as a potential roadmap for addressing the challenges posed by UPFs. Just as the harmful effects of tobacco became increasingly clear, leading to restrictions on marketing, taxation, and labeling, similar measures may be necessary for UPFs. The study notes that, like tobacco, marketing claims on UPFs – such as “low fat” or “sugar free” – can be misleading, functioning as “health washing” that stalls regulation, similar to how cigarette filters were once advertised as protective innovations.

Proposed Regulatory Measures

The study advocates for a multi-pronged approach to regulating UPFs, drawing parallels to successful tobacco control strategies. These include:

• Taxation: Implementing taxes on nutrient-poor, ultra-processed foods to discourage consumption.
• Marketing Restrictions: Limiting advertising, particularly to children, who are especially vulnerable to the persuasive tactics of the food industry.
• Reduced Availability: Reducing the availability of UPFs in settings like schools and hospitals, where healthier options should be prioritized.
• Clearer Labeling: Improving product labeling to provide consumers with transparent information about the degree of processing and potential health risks. This includes addressing misleading claims like “low fat” or “high protein” that can mask the overall unhealthy nature of the product.

The need for regulation is underscored by the increasing prevalence of UPF consumption. In the United States, more than half of the average person’s daily calories now come from UPFs. In the United Kingdom, these foods account for almost two-thirds of adolescents’ calorie intake. This widespread consumption highlights the urgent need for intervention to protect public health.

“That level of harm demands regulatory action aimed at industry design and marketing, not individual willpower,” Gearhardt stated. The study suggests that addressing the systemic factors driving UPF consumption is essential to curbing the rising rates of diet-related diseases and improving overall population health. The parallels drawn between UPFs and tobacco offer a compelling argument for a fundamental shift in how we approach food policy and industry accountability.

February 5, 2026