A new paper from Harvard, University of Michigan, and Duke University argues that ultra-processed foods should be regulated like tobacco products, not traditional foods.
Published February 3 in The Milbank Quarterly, the research draws on addiction science, nutrition data, and public health history to make the case. The authors point to engineered addiction mechanisms, industry marketing tactics, and population-level health harms as shared characteristics between UPFs and cigarettes.
The timing matters. This study appears alongside a major Lancet series involving 43 global experts examining UPF regulation—suggesting coordinated momentum toward policy action. Global UPF sales exceed $1.9 trillion annually, and the products now comprise over 50% of UK diets and 60% of US diets.
The addiction framework
Research from UC San Francisco's Industry Documents Library reveals tobacco companies applied laboratory techniques—including EEG measures—to food product development when they owned brands like Kraft. A 2019 NIH trial found people on UPF diets consumed approximately 500 additional calories daily versus whole food diets. A University of Michigan study found 12% of older Americans meet clinical addiction criteria for UPFs—higher than rates for alcohol (1.5%) or tobacco (4%) in the same demographic.
The researchers argue "health washing" claims like "low fat" or "sugar free" parallel 1950s cigarette filter marketing: promoted as protective innovations that offered little meaningful benefit.
Regulatory implications
The authors acknowledge food differs from tobacco—it's essential for survival. But they suggest regulators can distinguish harmful UPFs from other foods, just as alcoholic drinks are differentiated from other beverages.
Prof Ashley Gearhardt, a clinical psychologist specializing in addiction, notes patients draw the same parallels: "They would say, 'I feel addicted to this stuff... I used to smoke cigarettes, now I have the same habit but it's with soda and doughnuts.'"
What this means for enterprise tech
If governments adopt tobacco-style frameworks, expect opportunities in regulatory technology, supply chain transparency platforms, and food reformulation systems. Warning label compliance, front-of-pack labeling schemes, and marketing restriction enforcement will require new tooling.
The real test: whether policymakers act on the research or whether industry lobbying—coordinated across hundreds of interest groups globally—delays implementation. History suggests tobacco regulation took decades. Food regulation faces the added complexity of distinguishing essential products from harmful formulations.