US Researchers Compare Ultra-Processed Foods to Cigarettes, Arguing for Tighter Regulation
In a striking comparison, researchers from three US universities have argued that ultra-processed foods (UPFs) - commonly consumed packaged snacks and soft drinks - should be treated more like cigarettes than regular food. The study suggests that UPFs are engineered to encourage addiction and consumption, mirroring the tactics used by tobacco companies.
The authors of the report draw parallels between the production processes of UPFs and cigarettes, highlighting similarities in how manufacturers optimise product dosages and design features that drive compulsive use. They argue that marketing claims on UPFs, such as "low fat" or "sugar free," are essentially "health washing" tactics designed to stall regulation.
The researchers conclude that many UPFs pose significant public health risks, warranting commensurate regulation - including marketing restrictions and structural interventions similar to those used in tobacco control. They also argue that the distinction between UPFs and minimally processed fruits or vegetables is crucial, as some adverse health effects may come from replacing whole foods with UPFs.
One expert warned of "overreach" in the comparison, suggesting that UPFs may not be intrinsically addictive like nicotine. Others pointed out that regulatory responses should focus on dietary quality, reformulation standards, and food system diversification rather than mirroring tobacco control measures.
The study's findings echo growing concerns about the impact of UPFs on global health systems, particularly in Africa where corporates are increasingly finding ways to exploit weak regulations and changing consumer patterns.
In a striking comparison, researchers from three US universities have argued that ultra-processed foods (UPFs) - commonly consumed packaged snacks and soft drinks - should be treated more like cigarettes than regular food. The study suggests that UPFs are engineered to encourage addiction and consumption, mirroring the tactics used by tobacco companies.
The authors of the report draw parallels between the production processes of UPFs and cigarettes, highlighting similarities in how manufacturers optimise product dosages and design features that drive compulsive use. They argue that marketing claims on UPFs, such as "low fat" or "sugar free," are essentially "health washing" tactics designed to stall regulation.
The researchers conclude that many UPFs pose significant public health risks, warranting commensurate regulation - including marketing restrictions and structural interventions similar to those used in tobacco control. They also argue that the distinction between UPFs and minimally processed fruits or vegetables is crucial, as some adverse health effects may come from replacing whole foods with UPFs.
One expert warned of "overreach" in the comparison, suggesting that UPFs may not be intrinsically addictive like nicotine. Others pointed out that regulatory responses should focus on dietary quality, reformulation standards, and food system diversification rather than mirroring tobacco control measures.
The study's findings echo growing concerns about the impact of UPFs on global health systems, particularly in Africa where corporates are increasingly finding ways to exploit weak regulations and changing consumer patterns.
"When you try to regulate your diet, but really you're just trying to regulate yourself"
Who's really the villain here? 
Low fat, sugar free... who cares?! 
, never thought of them as being like tobacco products. But at the same time, it's not hard to see why they might be engineered that way - all those added sugars and preservatives can't be good for you, right? Still, I wish more people would talk about this stuff... my aunt has been trying to get her family to switch to whole foods more often, but it's easy to fall back into old habits 
.
. I mean, have you seen those ultra-processed foods lately? They're like designed to be addictive or something! I remember my grandma used to make her own snacks from scratch, not that fancy-schmancy stuff they sell in stores nowadays. And don't even get me started on the marketing claims – "low fat" this and "sugar free" that... sounds like a bunch of hooey to me 
.
. I mean, have you seen some of the stuff they put into these packaged snacks? It's like they're trying to addict us or something 
. The comparison to cigarettes isn't too far off if you ask me. Those tobacco companies knew exactly what they were doing when they created their products, and it's not that different with UPFs. They're designed to be super appealing and keep you coming back for more, right? 
. So, yeah, let's get stricter regulations on those super-processed snacks, but also let's encourage more healthy eating habits too 
the fact that experts are warning of "overreach" just shows how slow the pace is when it comes to addressing this stuff 
those "low fat" or "sugar free" labels sound like marketing tricks to me 
anyone else feel like we need stricter rules on what can be called a healthy food option? 
. I get what the researchers are saying, though - if cigarettes have regulations to keep us safe, shouldn't UPFs get some love too? Like, can we please just have some common sense when it comes to labeling and marketing? It's not like tobacco companies are trying to scam us or anything (although, let's be real, they kinda are 
.
. but seriously, can we please just give us some decent labeling and portion control already?! 
.