By Charlotte Webster-
Ultra‑processed foods have become nearly impossible to avoid. They line supermarket shelves, dominate fast‑food menus, and often make up more than half of what adults and children alike consume every day. In many ways, these products are the backbone of modern convenience diets.
Yet a growing chorus of public health scientists is now warning that this convenience comes with a hidden cost a cost that may be as severe and far‑reaching as the harms once tied to tobacco.
AD: Capeesh Restaurant
According to a new study published on February 3, 2026, in the Milbank Quarterly, ultra‑processed foods should be treated more like cigarettes than food because of how they are engineered to foster compulsive consumption and drive public health harms.
The debate is no longer fringe. Researchers from institutions including Harvard University, the University of Michigan, and Duke University assert that ultra‑processed foods (UPFs) and cigarettes share striking similarities in how they are designed and marketed, and in the burden they place on global health.
Both are engineered to be highly rewarding, exceptionally palatable, and critics say purposefully formulated to encourage repeated, habitual use. Like cigarettes, ultra‑processed foods are linked to a wide range of serious health risks, from heart disease and diabetes to cancer and mental health disorders.
AD: Oysterian Sea Food Restaurant And Bar
While no one disputes that people must eat to survive, scientists argue that the food system must distinguish between foods that support health and those that jeopardise it, and regulate them accordingly.
Despite the essential difference that food is necessary for life and cigarettes are not, proponents of stricter regulation say that many ultra‑processed products have become so ubiquitous, heavily marketed, and health‑impacting that they function less like nourishment and more like a public health hazard.
And unlike the slow trends that triggered tobacco regulation decades ago, the pace of consumption and dominance of UPFs in dietary patterns today suggests urgency.
Public Health Experts Urge Tobacco‑Style Interventions for Food
At the core of this debate is a shift in how scientists conceptualize ultra‑processed foods. Historically, nutrition policy has focused on individual nutrients fat, sugar, salt and caloric balance. But a large and growing body of scientific evidence suggests that the way foods are processed and formulated matters just as much, if not more, than their calorie counts.
A Canadian study found that people with diets high in ultra‑processed foods showed markers of poor cardiometabolic health, including higher blood pressure, waist circumference, and insulin levels, even after accounting for exercise, weight, and socioeconomic factors.
The emerging picture is that UPFs do more than just supply empty calories: they are linked to chronic inflammation, obesity, metabolic dysfunction, and a host of diseases traditionally associated with poor diet quality.
Ultra‑processed foods typically contain high levels of added sugars, salt, unhealthy fats, and a cocktail of industrial additives, while being low in fiber, beneficial nutrients, and protective phytochemicals.
These nutritional imbalances have been connected to increases in systemic inflammation a key driver of heart disease and other chronic conditions.
A major review spanning millions of participants and dozens of studies estimates that high UPF consumption is associated with dozens of adverse health outcomes, including greater risks of cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, cancer, obesity, and even adverse mental health outcomes.
Some analyses have found that each 10 percent increase in the proportion of calories from ultra‑processed foods is linked to a higher risk of type 2 diabetes, and potential elevations in cancer risk.
The authors explain that ultra‑processed foods are designed for rapid consumption and repeated use, often branded with misleading health claims like “low fat” or “sugar free,” and that these characteristics, combined with their widespread availability and marketing, make them especially harmful and deserving of regulation similar to that applied to cigarettes.
They draw parallels to the tobacco industry’s historical strategies: cigarettes were once marketed as glamorous and safe, often accompanied by misleading health claims. Ultra‑processed foods, the researchers say, utilise similar tactics with labels like “low fat” or “zero sugar” that may create a false sense of safety even when the product remains harmful.
Beyond marketing, the biological effects of these foods are raising alarm bells among nutrition scientists. Research suggests that patterns of consumption can resemble addictive behaviours, with highly palatable foods triggering reward pathways in the brain in ways similar to other addictive substances.
A Science News feature explains how ultra‑processed items, laden with sugar, fat, and sensory additives, can create powerful pulls on consumers that mirror the compulsive use seen with nicotine or alcohol.
These effects may be particularly problematic because UPFs dominate modern food environments. In the United States, for example, these foods can account for around 60 percent of daily calorie intake among adults and even more among children and adolescents.
Their high palatability and convenience help explain why many people consume them disproportionately, even when they are aware of potential harms.
If cigarettes once required a public reckoning over how pleasure and addiction were engineered into a product, the same might be true now for ultra‑processed foods. Experts are calling for regulatory strategies that go beyond traditional dietary advice and tackle the structural drivers of consumption just as tobacco control policies eventually did with advertising restrictions, taxes, and warning labels.
Public health advocates argue that regulating these foods could mean implementing clearer labelling, restricting deceptive marketing to children, taxing high‑harm products, and limiting where and how they can be sold policies reminiscent of measures that once curbed tobacco use.
They also push for improved food environments, so that minimally processed, nutrient‑dense foods become easier and more affordable for everyone to access.
Critics caution that fully equating ultra‑processed foods with tobacco is an oversimplification and argue that the science is still evolving. They note that not all UPFs carry the same level of risk and that some fortified or processed items may still have a place in balanced diets.
Nonetheless, there is broad agreement that the health impacts of high levels of processing are concerning and warrant far stronger action than currently seen in many countries.
The idea of treating ultra‑processed foods like cigarettes raises fundamental questions about food, freedom, and responsibility. Unlike tobacco, food is essential for life, and many ultra‑processed products are deeply integrated into daily living.
Families rely on them for convenience, workers eat them on the go, and low‑income communities often have limited access to fresh, whole foods. To critics, this is one of the biggest challenges: how to protect public health without denying people access to acceptable and affordable food choices.
Still, mounting evidence is shifting the narrative from one of individual blame to one focusing on systems and industry practices. Researchers emphasise that food environments not just personal choice shape dietary patterns.
Ultra‑processed food companies have become global giants with vast marketing budgets and intense influence over what ends up in carts and on dinner tables. In many ways, their reach resembles that of the tobacco industry at its peak.
Some governments and jurisdictions have already begun to respond. For instance, public health campaigns aimed at reducing sugary beverage consumption have gained traction, while other countries are experimenting with front‑of‑package warning labels and fiscal policies aimed at discouraging high‑harm products. These incremental steps suggest a possible future where certain ultra‑processed foods face stricter oversight.
Even beyond regulation, the public health case for reducing UPF consumption is compelling on purely health‑scientific grounds. Research has linked high intake of these foods to inflammation, heart disease markers, and even increased cancer risk, independent of body weight or caloric intake alone.
A study highlighted by the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health found associations between ultra‑processed food consumption and a higher risk of lung cancer, even among non‑smokers, underscoring that diet quality may influence disease risk beyond traditional lifestyle factors like smoking or exercise.
Moreover, the patterns seen in countries with high UPF consumption mirror trends in chronic disease prevalence: obesity, type 2 diabetes, and cardiovascular disease rates have climbed in parallel with the rise of industrial food processing.
Some experts believe that if these patterns continue unchecked, health systems around the world will see escalating burdens that mirror those once blamed on tobacco decades ago.
AD: Heritage And Restaurant Lounge Bar