A recent review published in The Milbank Quarterly argues that many ultraprocessed foods (UPFs) are engineered in ways that make them behave like tobacco products in the brain and in daily life. The authors, Ashley N. Gearhardt, Kelly D. Brownell, and Allan M. Brandt, describe UPFs as “carefully engineered to maximize hedonic impact, consumption, and profitability.” They say these products can drive “compulsive consumption” and “disrupt appetite regulation,” which is why they believe UPFs may be “as addictive as tobacco products.”
Their core argument is not that every person is addicted, or that all processed foods are equal. It is that modern UPFs share the same kind of engineering logic that made cigarettes uniquely hard to quit.
“Cigarettes and UPFs are not simply natural products but highly engineered delivery systems designed specifically to maximize biological and psychological reinforcement and habitual overuse,” the research team wrote.
The review notes there is “no single universal definition” of ultraprocessed foods. One practical rule of thumb mentioned is foods that contain ingredients you would not typically have in your kitchen cupboards, including emulsifiers and additives.
Many professionals use the NOVA classification, which defines ultraprocessed foods as “formulations of ingredients, mostly of exclusive industrial use, typically created by a series of industrial techniques and processes.”
The review also stresses there is a spectrum. Minimally processed foods might be altered for safety and storage through grinding, pasteurization, fermentation, or freezing. Ultraprocessed foods, by contrast, are designed as industrial products and often built to be irresistibly rewarding.
“Not everyone is ‘addicted’ to these foods, but for a meaningful minority, they trigger classic addiction-like patterns: strong cravings, loss of control, and continued use despite negative health effects,” Routhenstein said.
What is ‘Addictive‘
The authors did not claim UPFs contain one magic addictive molecule like nicotine. Instead, they applied an addiction-science lens that focuses on the whole delivery vehicle, similar to how cigarettes are evaluated as engineered nicotine delivery systems.
They synthesized findings across addiction science, nutrition, and public health history to identify design features that increase reinforcing potential. They focused on five areas:
- delivery speed
- hedonic engineering, meaning designing foods to be irresistibly good
- dose optimization
- environmental ubiquity
- deceptive reformulation, also called “health washing”
The review argues UPFs meet “established addiction-science benchmarks,” especially when compared directly to tobacco’s playbook.
The Mechanism: Reward Pathways and Dopamine, Built for Speed
The review’s biological case centers on the brain’s reward system and dopamine signaling. The authors describe the mesolimbic dopamine pathway as a system evolved to reinforce survival behaviors, but one that can be “hijacked” by industrial products that deliver intense reward with speed and precision.
For UPFs, the key reinforcing ingredients are refined carbohydrates and added fats, often combined in ways that are rare in nature. The authors emphasize that carbohydrates and fats activate separate gut brain reward pathways and can produce a stronger effect together.
“Refined carbohydrates stimulate dopamine release via the vagus nerve, whereas fats do so through intestinal lipid sensing,” the researchers wrote.
They also highlight that the refined carbohydrate fat combination is “almost nonexistent in nature,” yet common in the foods many people struggle to moderate.
The other major lever is delivery speed. Cigarettes deliver nicotine to the brain within seconds. The authors argue UPFs are engineered to mimic that rapid reward pattern by being rapidly digested and absorbed, often because they have little to no fiber and their food structure has been broken down through processing.
They describe UPFs as effectively “predigested,” making sugar and fat hit the body fast, creating a quick reward spike that fades quickly, which can trigger repeated craving.
Hedonic Engineering: Flavor Bursts, Melting Textures, and “More”
The review describes intentional design choices that push continued intake: flavor bursts that fade quickly, textures that melt in your mouth, and combinations that maximize pleasure without tipping into disgust.
In the supporting material included with your source, flavorists describe wanting a quick burst that does not linger so a person wants more. The authors use this to argue that short lived pleasure is not an accident, it is a feature that can encourage repeat consumption.
Health Washing: The “Filter Cigarette” Move, Repeated in Food
The authors say both tobacco and food industries have used “health washing,” marketing that creates the illusion of reduced harm while keeping the addictive structure intact.
For tobacco, the review points to filters in the 1950s. They were marketed as protective, but offered “little meaningful benefit,” and many smokers compensated by inhaling more deeply or smoking more often.
For ultraprocessed foods, the parallel is labels like “low fat” or “sugar free” that still preserve the same highly reinforcing combinations and engineered structure.
The review argues the harm is not just the label, but the product design that keeps the reinforcement system running.
A 2023 estimate cited in the summary says over 73% of foods in the United States are ultraprocessed. The review argues that because UPFs are everywhere, convenient, portable, and heavily marketed, the environment itself becomes a constant trigger, similar to the era when cigarettes were socially and physically ubiquitous.
Mir Ali, MD, said UPFs are engineered to be highly appealing and argued for stronger education and public health strategies modeled on tobacco reduction.
“I believe increased education regarding the negative impact of ultra-processed foods is essential,” Ali said, adding that strategies used to reduce cigarette consumption “may be a helpful model.”
Routhenstein took a slightly narrower position, saying UPFs should not be regulated exactly like cigarettes, but should face stronger policies inspired by tobacco control.
“I don’t think UPFs should be regulated exactly like cigarettes, but they do warrant stronger, tobacco-inspired policies: marketing restrictions, clear front-of-package labeling, tighter standards on health claims, and limits in schools or hospitals,” she said.
The review’s authors go further, listing measures like legal action over health damages and misleading claims, restrictions on advertising, taxes on nutrient poor UPFs, reducing UPFs in schools and hospitals, and clearer labeling of ultraprocessing.
“Policies that confront UPFs with the same seriousness that once applied to tobacco, while actively promoting real food, offer the most promising path out of the current crisis,” the researchers wrote.
The review’s argument is not that food is identical to tobacco, or that everyone who eats UPFs is addicted. It is that a portion of ultraprocessed products are engineered using the same playbook that made cigarettes so compulsive: dose optimization, rapid delivery, sensory manipulation, ubiquitous availability, and health-washed marketing.
If that framing is correct, the authors argue, the solution cannot be only personal responsibility. Public policy, labeling, marketing limits, and accountability may need to play a bigger role, just as they did when smoking was a normalized daily habit.
HNZ Editor: Our problem in any case that blames “ultra-processed” food is that they seem to be blaming the process, and not the underlying ingredients. There literally is no definition for this and every food is “processed” in some way.
Yes, many of us are addicted to sugary sodas, that combination of caffeine and sugar that we cannot give up. And yes, food manufacturers are trying to make food better and tastier so that people will buy more, and they often neglect nutritional value. But processing ultimately makes food taste better. “Natural” foods often do not taste as good. And if we had to relay on direct to the table foods, the world would have a lot more starving people.
If the problem is nutrition, let’s focus on nutrition – not the mechanics of getting the food to people.
