A study by researchers at three United States universities says ultra-processed foods (UPFs) share similarities with cigarettes and recommends similar levels of regulation.
Published this week in the Milbank Quarterly, the study reports that UPFs “share key engineering strategies adopted from the tobacco industry” designed to drive “compulsive consumption.” Common UPFs such as soft drinks, chips and cookies are industrially produced to optimize the “doses” of addictive ingredients and encourage overuse. “UPFs are not just nutrients but [are] intentionally designed, highly engineered and manipulated, hedonically optimized products,” the paper says.
The researchers from Harvard, the University of Michigan and Duke University recommend applying regulatory measures used for tobacco to UPFs. Suggested policies include clearer labeling, higher taxes, limits on availability in schools and hospitals, and restrictions on marketing aimed at children. The authors note that because food is essential, regulating UPFs is especially urgent since “opting out of the modern food supply is difficult.”
The findings follow a UNICEF study published in The Lancet in December that documented UPF consumption among young children in 11 countries. That study found 10–35% of children aged five and under regularly consumed sweet soft drinks, while 60% of teenagers reported eating at least one UPF product the previous day.
In wealthier countries, more than half of calorie intake can come from potentially harmful UPFs, and poorer nations are increasingly affected. Githinji Gitahi, CEO of Kenya-based NGO Amref Health Africa, warned of a “growing public health alarm” across Africa, saying corporations exploit weak regulation and changing consumption patterns, placing preventable pressure on strained health systems.
Some experts urge caution about equating UPFs with tobacco. Professor Martin Warren of the Quadram Institute questioned whether UPFs are “intrinsically addictive in a pharmacological sense, or whether they mainly exploit learned preferences, reward conditioning and convenience.”
Edited by: Elizabeth Schumacher