Why ultra-processed foods are being compared to cigarettes in new study

Drawing parallels with tobacco products, researchers warn that ultra-processed foods may be fuelling preventable disease and should not be treated as just another dietary choice

Every time we reach for a fizzy drink or a packet of crisps, most of us think only of quick convenience and taste. But a new study suggests these products may pose risks that go beyond poor nutrition and could warrant regulatory treatment similar to cigarettes. The research raises fresh questions about how everyday foods are viewed, and how the industries behind them are regulated.

 

What the study says

 

The research titled 'From Tobacco to Ultraprocessed Food: How Industry Engineering Fuels the Epidemic of Preventable Disease', published earlier this week in Milbank Quarterly, argues that ultra-processed foods should be treated more like cigarettes than food.

 

 

Ultra-processed foods (UPFs) are industrially created products made using ingredients that have been heavily altered or combined with additives for flavour, texture and shelf life. These include soft drinks, packaged snacks, fast food, ready meals and many breakfast cereals.

 

Unlike fruit, vegetables or minimally processed foods, UPFs are designed to be hyper-palatable, making them easy to over consume and hard to resist.

 

The authors, from Harvard University, the University of Michigan and Duke University, say that these foods share troubling similarities with tobacco products, particularly in how they are engineered and marketed.

 

Why compare ultra-processed foods to cigarettes?

 

One of the authors, Professor Ashley Gearhardt of the University of Michigan, highlights that many of her clinical patients describe ultra-processed foods with terms like "addictive" and "craveable", much as smokers talk about cigarettes.

 

Here are some of the shared traits behind the comparison:

 

Engineered for overconsumption

 

Ultra-processed foods are not simply convenient or long-lasting, but also deliver combinations of sugar, salt, fat and additives that stimulate the brain’s reward system. This makes them easy to overeat and difficult to resist, a pattern researchers say mirrors how nicotine keeps smokers coming back for more.

 

Powerful and targeted marketing

 

Much like tobacco advertising in the past, ultra-processed foods are aggressively marketed, often to children and young people. Bright packaging, cartoon characters and misleading health claims such as 'low fat ' or 'high protein' can mask poor nutritional quality, creating a false perception of safety.

 

Shifting blame to the individual

 

For decades, smoking was framed as a personal choice, while the role of design and marketing was downplayed. The study argues a similar narrative now surrounds diet-related disease, placing responsibility on individuals while ignoring how modern food environments push people towards unhealthy choices.

 

Widespread health impact

 

High consumption of ultra-processed foods has been linked to obesity, type 2 diabetes, heart disease and certain cancers. While ultra-processed foods do not contain nicotine, the researchers say the population-level harm they cause is comparable to tobacco, particularly as these foods dominate modern diets across income groups.

 

The authors stress that the comparison is not about banning foods outright, but about recognising how industrial food systems shape behaviour. In their view, treating ultra-processed foods purely as a matter of personal responsibility ignores the structural forces driving poor health outcomes.

 

What some experts caution

 

Professor Martin Warren, chief scientific officer at the Quadram Institute, acknowledged parallels but cautioned against drawing direct equivalence between nicotine addiction and ultra-processed food consumption. He said it remains unclear whether UPFs are chemically addictive, or whether they primarily exploit behavioural preferences and convenience.

 

What could tobacco-style regulation look like?

 

If ultra-processed foods were regulated more like cigarettes, potential measures might include:

 

• Stronger marketing restrictions, especially to children
• Clearer health warnings on packaging
• Taxes on products high in sugar, salt and fat
• Limits on health claims that mislead consumers

 

Experts say such steps would shift accountability away from individuals and towards the industries whose products are designed to drive consumption, potentially offering stronger public health protections in an increasingly ultra-processed food environment.   

For more health updates, follow #HealthwithBS

This report is for informational purposes only and is not a substitute for professional medical advice.