Michael Gwarisa
As governments intensify efforts to address rising chronic disease rates, a new study published in The Milbank Quarterly argues that ultra-processed food manufacturers are using strategies long associated with the tobacco industry to drive overconsumption and dependency.
The article examines how the design, marketing, and distribution of ultra-processed foods, commonly known as UPFs, closely resemble those of industrial tobacco products. The authors contend that policymakers should view UPFs not simply as food, but as addictive, industrially engineered substances, similar in important ways to cigarettes. They recommend that governments draw lessons from decades of tobacco control policies to regulate ultra-processed foods and reduce their impact on public health.
According to the study, the parallels between cigarettes and ultra-processed foods begin at the product design stage. Just as cigarettes are engineered to deliver nicotine rapidly and stimulate cravings, ultra-processed foods are formulated to maximize pleasure and encourage repeated consumption. The authors explain that these products deliver sugar and or fats at doses designed to intensify reward while minimizing negative sensory responses.
Ultra-processed foods are also designed to be digested quickly. This is achieved by stripping away fiber, protein, and water, and by adding enzymes that speed the breakdown of sugars and fats. As a result, consumers experience rapid spikes in blood sugar followed by sharp declines, a cycle that can intensify hunger and cravings. Additional ingredients are used to enhance taste, smell, and texture, reduce feelings of fullness, and extend shelf life, further increasing their appeal.
The study also highlights similarities in marketing and availability. Like cigarettes and, more recently, e-cigarettes, ultra-processed foods are widely available and heavily packaged for convenience, making habitual consumption easy. Both product categories have also relied on health-oriented marketing claims. Tobacco products were once promoted as “low-tar” or “smoke-free,” while ultra-processed foods are often labeled “high protein” or “low fat,” messaging that can mislead consumers about health risks.
“Some ultra-processed foods have crossed a line,” said Ashley Gearhardt, PhD, Clinical Science Area Chair and Professor of Psychology at the University of Michigan. “Products like soda, sweets, and fast food are engineered less like food and more like cigarettes, optimized for craving, rapid intake, and repeated use. That level of harm demands regulatory action aimed at industry design and marketing, not individual willpower.”
The review draws on evidence from addiction science, nutrition research, and public health history to identify features that increase the addictive potential of both cigarettes and ultra-processed foods. The authors focus on five key areas: dose optimization, delivery speed, hedonic engineering, environmental ubiquity, and deceptive reformulation.
The findings also align with broader concerns about noncommunicable diseases and cancer. Ahead of World Cancer Day, Katie Dain, CEO of the NCD Alliance, emphasized the shared drivers of these conditions. “If we want to reduce the cancer burden, we also need to reduce the noncommunicable disease burden, it is indisputable that tobacco, alcohol, ultra-processed food, and air quality are major drivers of multiple kinds of cancer,” she said. “The fight against cancer is to a large degree a fight against NCDs, and prevention has to be pivotal.”
Meanwhile, Zimbabwe has introduced a Sugar and Fast-food tax in order to address the growing scourge of Non-Communicable diseases.
