That familiar pull—the bag of chips you can’t put down, the sugary drink you crave even when you’re not thirsty, the late-night fast-food run that feels unavoidable. Novel research suggests these aren’t simply matters of willpower, but rather the result of foods deliberately engineered to hijack our brains, mirroring tactics once used to sell cigarettes. The growing concern over ultraprocessed foods and their impact on public health is gaining momentum, with scientists increasingly drawing parallels between the addictive qualities of these products and those of tobacco.
A study published in The Milbank Quarterly, and led by researchers at the University of Michigan, Harvard University, and Duke University, argues that many ultraprocessed foods—including packaged snacks, sugary beverages, and ready-to-eat meals—aren’t simply unhealthy choices. They are, according to the research, intentionally designed to maximize consumption, employing strategies that amplify reward in the brain, encourage habitual utilize, and shape public perception to protect profits. This isn’t accidental, says study first author Ashley Gearhardt, a professor of clinical psychology at the University of Michigan and an expert at U-M’s Institute for Healthcare Policy and Innovation. “It may not be by accident that certain snacks feel impossible to put down,” she explained.
The Science of “Hyperpalatability” and Reward
The researchers draw a direct line between the history of tobacco regulation and the current state of the food industry. For decades, tobacco companies deliberately manipulated nicotine levels and added ingredients to enhance the addictive potential of cigarettes. Similarly, ultraprocessed foods are often formulated with precise combinations of sugar, fat, and salt—a combination researchers call “hyperpalatability”—that trigger dopamine release in the brain, creating a rewarding sensation. This reward system, the study explains, is the same one exploited by the tobacco industry.
This isn’t just about taste, but about the speed and intensity of that reward. Ultraprocessed foods are designed to deliver a rapid and powerful dopamine hit, far exceeding what naturally occurring foods provide. This rapid reward can override the body’s natural satiety signals, leading to overconsumption. The study highlights how food manufacturers use sophisticated techniques to optimize these reward pathways, creating products that are difficult to resist, even when we’re not truly hungry.
Shifting the Focus from Individual Choice to Systemic Factors
For years, public health messaging has largely focused on individual responsibility—encouraging people to produce better choices, exercise more self-control, and eat a balanced diet. Yet, the researchers argue that this approach overlooks the powerful forces at play in shaping our food environment. “This reframing matters—especially for young adults navigating food environments packed with cheap, hyperpalatable, always-available options,” the study notes.
The analysis calls for a shift in focus, advocating for policies that address the systemic factors driving the consumption of ultraprocessed foods. This includes examining the marketing tactics used to promote these products, the affordability of healthy alternatives, and the overall accessibility of nutritious food options. Just as tobacco regulation moved beyond blaming smokers to holding companies accountable, the researchers suggest a similar evolution is needed in food policy. This could involve measures such as taxes on ultraprocessed foods, restrictions on marketing to children, and subsidies for healthier options.
What Defines “Ultraprocessed”?
Defining “ultraprocessed” is key to understanding the scope of the problem. These foods are typically characterized by containing ingredients not traditionally used in home cooking, such as hydrogenated oils, modified starches, and artificial flavors and colors. They often undergo multiple industrial processes and are designed for convenience and long shelf life. Examples include sugary drinks, packaged snacks, processed meats, and many ready-to-eat meals. The study emphasizes that these foods are fundamentally different from minimally processed foods like fruits, vegetables, and whole grains.
Implications for Public Health and Future Research
The findings have significant implications for public health, particularly as rates of obesity, diabetes, and other diet-related diseases continue to rise. The researchers hope their work will spark a broader conversation about the role of the food industry in shaping our health and well-being. They also emphasize the need for further research to better understand the long-term effects of ultraprocessed food consumption and to develop effective strategies for mitigating their harmful effects.
Gearhardt stresses that the goal isn’t to equate eating with smoking, but to recognize that certain foods are engineered in ways that make moderation unusually difficult. “It’s about understanding how products are engineered—and who benefits when ‘just one more bite’ turns into a habit,” she said. For a generation accustomed to readily available, highly palatable foods, the challenge extends beyond individual willpower and requires a systemic approach to address the underlying drivers of overconsumption.
The researchers are optimistic that by raising awareness of these issues, they can empower consumers, inform policy decisions, and ultimately create a healthier food environment for all. The next step, they say, is to translate these findings into concrete policy recommendations and to engage with stakeholders across the food system to promote meaningful change.
Have thoughts on this story? Share your comments below and let us know what you think.
