Ultra-Processed Foods Should Be Regulated Like Tobacco, Researchers Warn
Ultra-processed foods (UPFs) may have more in common with cigarettes than with real food — and should be regulated accordingly — according to a new peer-reviewed study published in The Milbank Quarterly.
Drawing on addiction science, nutrition research, and public-health history, the authors argue that UPFs are deliberately engineered to promote compulsive consumption and population-wide harm, using tactics long associated with the tobacco industry. They conclude that current regulatory approaches fail to reflect the scale of risk.
Designed for Overconsumption
UPFs are industrially manufactured products made largely from refined ingredients and additives such as emulsifiers, colourings and artificial flavours. Common examples include soft drinks, packaged snacks, breakfast cereals, ready-to-eat meals, and baked goods.
According to researchers from Harvard, the University of Michigan, and Duke University, these products are engineered to maximize reward, speed of consumption and repeat use — not nourishment.
The study identifies key parallels between cigarettes and UPFs, including optimized “doses” that rapidly activate brain reward pathways, formulations that override natural satiety signals, aggressive marketing and misleading health claims, and widespread exposure despite mounting evidence of harm. Taken together, the authors argue these shared features justify a fundamental shift in how UPFs are regulated.
“Health Washing” and Delayed Action
The study warns that claims such as “low fat,” “sugar-free,” or “fortified” can obscure risk and delay regulation, echoing how cigarette filters were once promoted as safety innovations despite offering little real protection. By framing harm as a matter of individual choice rather than product design, these claims have repeatedly stalled meaningful public-health action.
Addiction Beyond Willpower
One of the study’s authors notes that many people describe their relationship with UPFs using the same language once associated with smoking: cravings, loss of control, repeated failed attempts to quit, and continued use despite knowing the harm. Whether or not UPFs are formally labeled “addictive,” the authors argue, their capacity to drive compulsive use is clear.
Unlike tobacco, food is essential for survival — a fact the authors say makes regulation more urgent, not less. In today’s food environment, opting out of UPFs is often difficult, particularly for children and populations facing aggressive marketing.
Why This Matters for Canada
Canadians are among the world’s highest consumers of ultra-processed foods, with UPFs accounting for more than half of daily caloric intake in many age groups. Yet Health Canada’s regulatory framework continues to rely largely on voluntary reformulation, marketing guidelines and individual behaviour change.
The growing evidence raises a simple question: if ultra-processed foods function more like cigarettes than nourishment, are current policies enough to protect public health — especially children’s health?
Sources:
The Guardian, Ultra-processed foods should be treated more like cigarettes than food – study
The Milbank Quarterly, Ultra-Processed Foods: Parallels With Tobacco and Implications for Regulation
******************************************************************************************************************