A new study has found that ultra-processed foods (UPFs) have more in common with cigarettes than with natural foods such as fruits and vegetables.
UPFs are industrially produced food items typically made with five or more ingredients, including additives, preservatives, sweeteners, emulsifiers, artificial colours and flavours. Examples include soft drinks and packaged snacks like crisps and biscuits.
Published on Tuesday in The Milbank Quarterly, the study analysed evidence from nutrition science, addiction research and public health history to compare ultra-processed foods with tobacco products.
The findings indicate that the production methods used for UPFs closely mirror those used in cigarette manufacturing, with both designed using techniques intended to promote “compulsive consumption”.
According to the researchers, many ultra-processed foods are engineered to precisely regulate ingredient levels in ways that increase their appeal and encourage excessive intake.
“UPFs are not simply sources of nutrients but intentionally designed, highly engineered, and manipulated products that are optimised for pleasure,” the study said.
The research team, drawn from Harvard University, the University of Michigan and Duke University, recommended that ultra-processed foods be regulated in ways similar to tobacco products.
They argued that regulation is even more critical for UPFs because food is essential for survival and avoiding the modern food environment is largely unrealistic.
The study also noted that while some ultra-processed foods are easy to identify, others are less obvious. Items such as granola bars, sports drinks, protein bars and fruit-flavoured yoghurt are often marketed as “low fat” or “sugar-free,” potentially misleading consumers.
The researchers described these practices as “health washing,” comparing them to the tobacco industry’s promotion of cigarette filters in the 1950s to downplay health risks.
Ashley Gearhardt of the University of Michigan, one of the study’s authors, suggested that harmful ultra-processed foods should be clearly labelled and treated differently from regular foods, similar to the distinction between alcoholic and non-alcoholic drinks.
The study argued that UPFs should be assessed not only on nutritional content but also as products deliberately engineered to drive repeated consumption.
It pointed to tobacco control strategies such as advertising restrictions, legal action and structural reforms as possible models for reducing harm linked to ultra-processed foods.
The authors also called for shifting responsibility away from individual consumers toward holding food companies accountable for the health effects of these products.
However, Martin Warren, chief scientific officer at the Quadram Institute, criticised the study for overstating the parallels between ultra-processed foods and tobacco.
He said it remains unclear whether UPFs are addictive in the same way as nicotine, or whether their harm lies in displacing healthier whole foods, arguing that regulation should focus more on improving diet quality and reforming the food system rather than directly replicating tobacco control measures.
“This distinction matters, because it influences whether regulatory responses should mirror tobacco control or instead prioritise dietary quality, reformulation standards, and food system diversification,” Warren said.