Ultra-Processed Foods and Tobacco Tactics: A Troubling Parallel

Key Finding: Multiple academic studies draw direct comparisons between the product engineering and marketing strategies of the ultra-processed food (UPF) industry and historical tactics used by the tobacco industry.

Research published in the American Journal of Public Health and The Milbank Quarterly—conducted by scholars from the University of Kansas, the University of Michigan, Harvard University, and Duke University—highlights the development, marketing, and health impacts of UPFs.

Health Associations

High consumption of UPFs is linked to serious cognitive decline. Observational studies cited by Cindy Leung of Harvard show a stark statistical association:

• A 58% higher risk of dementia
• A 46% higher risk of mild cognitive impairment
• A 47% higher risk of either outcome among individuals with high UPF intake

The analysis in The Milbank Quarterly further notes that UPF consumption is associated with elevated risks for cardiometabolic disease, cancer, neurodegenerative disease, and premature death.

Industry Origins and Business Strategies

Research details how tobacco giants Philip Morris and R.J. Reynolds expanded into global food markets from the mid-1980s to the mid-2000s.

Acquisition and Infrastructure

• Tobacco firms acquired local food companies (e.g., Kraft, Nabisco) to build distribution networks.
• They created integrated distribution and sales systems for both tobacco and food products.

Product Manipulation

• Researchers Tera Fazzino and Laura Schmidt note that companies optimized carbohydrate and fat formulations for rapid reward.
• Products were manipulated in size (e.g., king-size cigarettes followed by king-size sugary drinks and cookies).
• "Light" or "low-fat" versions were offered with strong flavor profiles to appeal to health-conscious consumers.

Geographic Expansion

• Philip Morris expanded into Canada, Europe, and parts of Asia; its food business generated approximately 50% of its sales.
• R.J. Reynolds focused on Central and South America, Mexico, and parts of Europe and Asia; roughly 30% of its portfolio was in food sales.

Product Engineering and Addictive Potential

"Many UPFs are designed to amplify reward responses in the brain and foster habitual use." — The Milbank Quarterly

The analysis identifies five key aspects of this engineering:

1. Dose optimization: Engineered to produce intense pleasure and induce craving.
2. Delivery speed: Processing strips the natural food matrix, ensuring rapid digestion and delivery of reinforcing elements to the brain. Notably, carbohydrates in UPFs can trigger dopamine increases of 150–300% above baseline, while fats typically increase dopamine by 120–140%.
3. Hedonic engineering: Products are designed for a rapid decline in sensory pleasure, which may induce craving.
4. Environmental ubiquity: UPFs are made widely available to constantly tempt consumers.
5. Deceptive reformulation: Products are marketed with health claims (e.g., "low-fat") without necessarily reducing addictive potential or health risks.

Ashley Gearhardt, a professor of clinical psychology at the University of Michigan and lead author of the Milbank Quarterly study, stated that this engineering can make moderation of certain foods difficult. The researchers clarify that the analysis does not equate eating with smoking, but highlights design similarities in how some foods are created.

Current Context and Policy Discussion

Although tobacco companies divested from food businesses in the early 2000s, researcher Tera Fazzino stated that their influence persists. Food companies continued profit-maximizing models, and other companies adopted similar strategies. Today, at least 70% of the U.S. food supply is considered hyperpalatable.

The researchers propose that food policy may require an evolution similar to tobacco regulation—moving towards holding companies accountable rather than solely blaming consumers.

Suggested actions from the analysis include:

• Legal measures and taxation
• Mandatory labeling
• Limiting advertising and sales of UPFs
• Public health campaigns to rebrand UPFs as hazardous and expose industry tactics

Marion Nestle and Lindsey Smith Taillie discussed the "Make America healthy again" movement, acknowledging its role in shifting focus to food industry practices but noting it lacks scientific rigor. Nestle criticized the Trump administration for reducing SNAP enrollment and failing to redirect corn subsidies toward whole foods, which could mitigate UPF consumption.

Responses

Altria and Kraft-Heinz did not respond to requests for comment.