A new comprehensive analysis suggests that ultra-processed foods should no longer be viewed simply as food. Instead, a team of researchers argues these products function more like industrially produced addictive substances. The review, published in The Milbank Quarterly, draws parallels between the modern food industry and the tobacco industry of the 20th century. The authors propose that manufacturers use sophisticated engineering to create compulsive consumption patterns.
This perspective challenges the traditional view that overeating is solely a failure of individual willpower. It implies that the products themselves are designed to override the body’s natural signals. The analysis synthesizes evidence from addiction science, nutrition, and public health history. It outlines how ultra-processed foods hijack the brain’s reward systems in ways that mirror the effects of nicotine.
The authors of the review focus on the transformation of raw ingredients into highly potent delivery systems. Tobacco leaves in their natural state are not inherently addictive enough to cause a public health crisis. It was the industrial engineering of the cigarette that turned nicotine into a global epidemic. Similarly, ingredients like corn, wheat, and beets are not addictive in their natural forms.
The paper contends that the processing of these foods creates a new class of substances. These products are optimized for speed, dose, and sensory appeal. The researchers identified five key metrics where the food industry appears to replicate the strategies of Big Tobacco. These include dose optimization, speed of delivery, hedonic engineering, environmental ubiquity, and deceptive reformulation.
Dose optimization refers to the precise calibration of rewarding ingredients. Tobacco companies spent decades breeding plants and blending leaves to achieve a nicotine level that was stimulating but not aversive. Modern cigarettes typically contain a standardized nicotine content that maximizes reinforcement. The food industry employs a similar strategy with salt, sugar, and fat.
Natural foods rarely contain high levels of both carbohydrates and fats. A fruit is high in sugar but low in fat, while a nut is high in fat but low in sugar. Ultra-processed foods often combine these macronutrients in specific ratios that do not exist in nature. This combination creates a supra-additive effect on the brain’s reward system. The result is a dopamine response that significantly exceeds what natural foods can elicit.
The second strategy involves the speed of delivery. The addictive potential of a substance is often linked to how quickly it reaches the brain. Tobacco companies used chemicals like ammonia to freebase nicotine, which allowed it to reach the brain within seconds of inhalation. This rapid onset strengthens the association between the behavior and the reward.
Food manufacturers achieve a similar effect by stripping the food matrix. They remove fiber, water, and protein, which normally slow down digestion. The resulting products are soft, easily chewed, and rapidly absorbed. This causes quick spikes in blood sugar and dopamine. The review suggests that these foods are essentially “predigested” to maximize their psychoactive velocity.
Hedonic engineering is the third area of focus. This involves the manipulation of sensory inputs to keep consumers wanting more. Cigarettes were engineered with menthol and other additives to reduce harshness and make the smoke easier to inhale. This allowed for deeper consumption and greater nicotine intake.
In the food supply, this takes the form of “bliss points” and specific flavor profiles. Manufacturers use additives to create flavor bursts that fade quickly. This phenomenon, known as a short hang time, prevents the flavor from lingering. A lingering flavor might signal satiety to the brain. By ensuring the flavor disappears rapidly, the product encourages the consumer to take another bite immediately.
The authors also highlight the concept of environmental ubiquity. In the mid-20th century, cigarettes were available in vending machines, hospitals, and checkout lines. This constant availability normalized smoking and triggered cravings through frequent visual cues. A similar landscape now exists for ultra-processed foods. They are sold in gas stations, pharmacies, and schools.
The widespread availability of these products erodes the traditional boundaries of meal times. It creates a culture of constant, frictionless consumption. The review notes that this ubiquity shifts the burden of resistance entirely onto the individual. It becomes difficult to maintain moderate consumption when environmental cues constantly encourage intake.
The final parallel involves deceptive reformulation, often called “health washing.” As public awareness of smoking harms grew, tobacco companies introduced “light” and “low-tar” cigarettes. These products were marketed as safer alternatives. However, they did not reduce the risk of disease or addiction. They largely served to keep health-conscious consumers in the market.
The food industry utilizes similar tactics with labels like “low-fat,” “reduced sugar,” or “vitamin-fortified.” These reformulations often maintain the addictive structure of the product while creating a halo of health. The addition of synthetic vitamins or fiber to a sugary snack does not negate the metabolic impact of the refined ingredients. These tactics may delay effective regulation by giving the appearance of corporate responsibility.
“Some ultra-processed foods have crossed a line,” said author Ashley Gearhardt, PhD, Clinical Science Area Chair and Professor of Psychology at the University of Michigan. “Products like soda, sweets, and fast food are engineered less like food and more like cigarettes—optimized for craving, rapid intake, and repeated use. That level of harm demands regulatory action aimed at industry design and marketing, not individual willpower.”
The implications of this engineered addiction extend well beyond obesity and metabolic disease. A growing body of independent research now links ultra-processed foods to significant mental and neurological harms. These findings support the Milbank review’s contention that these products biologically manipulate the consumer.
One study published in npj Metabolic Health and Disease suggests that these foods may physically alter brain structure. Researchers utilized data from the UK Biobank to analyze brain scans of over 30,000 people. They found that higher consumption of ultra-processed foods was associated with increased cellular density in the hypothalamus. This brain region is central to the regulation of appetite and metabolism.
The same study observed reduced integrity in the brain’s reward centers, including the nucleus accumbens. These changes were partly mediated by inflammation and body fat. However, some structural differences persisted even after accounting for these factors. This suggests that the additives or nutrient profiles of these foods may have a direct impact on neural tissue.
Further evidence of neurological impact comes from a study in Neurology. This research followed over 30,000 adults to assess the risk of stroke and cognitive impairment. The analysis found that a 10 percent increase in ultra-processed food intake correlated with a 16 percent higher risk of cognitive impairment. It also was linked to an 8 percent higher risk of stroke.
This association held true regardless of whether the participants followed healthy dietary patterns like the Mediterranean or DASH diets. This indicates that the processing level of the food matters as much as the nutrient content. The presence of healthy foods in the diet did not fully negate the risks posed by processed items.
The potential for long-term neurodegeneration was highlighted in another study published in Neurology. Researchers examined the link between diet and the early signs of Parkinson’s disease. They found that individuals with the highest intake of ultra-processed foods were significantly more likely to experience prodromal symptoms. These included sleep behavior disorders, constipation, and depression.
The researchers observed these symptoms years before a potential diagnosis. The study suggests that the inflammatory properties of these foods might damage dopamine-producing neurons. This provides a potential biological mechanism linking diet to neurodegenerative disease. The findings were consistent even after adjusting for overall diet quality and lifestyle factors.
Mental health outcomes also appear to be closely tied to the consumption of these engineered foods. A study published in Clinical Nutrition analyzed data from the NutriNet Brasil cohort. It found that individuals with the highest consumption of ultra-processed foods had a 42 percent greater risk of developing depressive symptoms.
This relationship was dose-dependent. As the proportion of processed food in the diet increased, so did the risk of depression. The authors of this study suggest that the lack of essential nutrients and the presence of artificial additives may disrupt the gut-brain axis. This disruption can influence mood regulation and susceptibility to mental health disorders.
Similar results were found in an analysis of the Melbourne Collaborative Cohort Study, published in the Journal of Affective Disorders. This research looked at long-term outcomes. It found that high consumption of ultra-processed foods was linked to elevated psychological distress more than a decade later. This suggests that the mental health impacts of a poor diet may be cumulative and long-lasting.
A broader global perspective was provided by a study in Frontiers in Nutrition. This analysis included over 400,000 adults from 60 countries. It found a consistent decline in mental wellbeing as the frequency of ultra-processed food consumption increased. Frequent consumers reported more issues with emotional regulation and cognitive control.
The study estimated that a significant percentage of clinical mental distress could be attributed to dietary habits. The findings were particularly pronounced in younger populations. This demographic consumes these products at higher rates. The researchers noted that exercise did not fully buffer the negative mental effects of a high-processed diet.
Finally, a study in Preventive Medicine focused on cognitive health in women. It found that high intake of ultra-processed foods during midlife was linked to subjective cognitive complaints later in life. Women who ate the most processed foods were about 20 percent more likely to report memory and thinking difficulties. This association remained even after excluding those diagnosed with dementia.
The collective weight of this evidence supports the Milbank paper’s call for a shift in policy. The authors argue that if ultra-processed foods are indeed addictive and harmful, they should be regulated similarly to tobacco. They propose that the current focus on individual responsibility is insufficient to address the scale of the problem.
Proposed interventions include restricting marketing, especially to children. The tobacco industry was eventually banned from using cartoon characters and colorful mascots. The authors suggest similar restrictions could reduce the appeal of processed foods to youth. They also advocate for excise taxes to increase the cost of these products.
The review also points to the importance of litigation. Lawsuits against tobacco companies forced the release of internal documents. These documents revealed the industry’s knowledge of the addictive nature of their products. Similar legal actions against food companies could shed light on the intentional design of ultra-processed foods.
The researchers emphasize that these foods are not essential for survival in their current form. Minimally processed foods have sustained human health for millennia. The transition to an industrial food supply has coincided with rising rates of chronic disease. The authors conclude that public health efforts must hold the industry accountable for the design of their products.
The study, “From Tobacco to Ultraprocessed Food: How Industry Engineering Fuels the Epidemic of Preventable Disease,” was authored by Ashley N. Gearhardt, Kelly D. Brownell, and Allan M. Brandt.
Leave a comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.