Ultra-Processed Foods Should Be Treated More Like Cigarettes Than Food, Study Says
17 291Ultra-processed foods (UPFs) have more in common with cigarettes than with fruit or vegetables, and require far tighter regulation, according to a new report. The Guardian: UPFs and cigarettes are engineered to encourage addiction and consumption, researchers from three US universities said, pointing to the parallels in widespread health harms that link both.
UPFs, which are widely available worldwide, are food products that have been industrially manufactured, often using emulsifiers or artificial colouring and flavours. The category includes soft drinks and packaged snacks such as crisps and biscuits. There are similarities in the production processes of UPFs and cigarettes, and in manufacturers' efforts to optimise the "doses" of products and how quickly they act on reward pathways in the body, according to the paper from researchers at Harvard, the University of Michigan and Duke University.
They draw on data from the fields of addiction science, nutrition and public health history to make their comparisons, published on 3 February in the healthcare journal the Milbank Quarterly. The authors suggest that marketing claims on the products, such as being "low fat" or "sugar free," are "health washing" that can stall regulation, akin to the advertising of cigarette filters in the 1950s as protective innovations that "in practice offered little meaningful benefit."
17 comments
Re:This is how they kill the poor (Score: 5, Insightful)
by hadleyburg ( 823868 ) on Tuesday February 03, 2026 @05:51PM (#65967516)
You can still buy cigarettes, and while there was once an attempt to ban alcoholic beverages, that didn't last. So, the most likely outcome is a big ugly warning label on the package that says in so many words "THIS SHIT BE UNHEALTHY, YO".
Which of course, people will just ignore just as they do the warnings on cigarettes and alcohol. Because ultimately, if you wanna put garbage in your body, that really should be your choice so long as you're fully informed.
And so long as your subsequent health problems are not a burden on anyone else?
Re:This is how they kill the poor (Score: 5, Insightful)
by Rei ( 128717 ) on Wednesday February 04, 2026 @06:42AM (#65968310)
The thing is that "ultra-processed food" is not a synonym for "junk food". It's a massive category that contains most things that people eat. Baby food is "ultraprocessed". A granola bar containing only four raw grains / nuts and whey powder is "ultraprocessed". Store wholegrain bread is "ultraprocessed". Vitamins are "ultraprocessed". But homemade cake isn't ultraprocessed. Homemade doughnuts are not ultraprocessed. Cream and coconut oil and lard aren't ultraprocessed. It's a dumb category. Yes, the average of the "ultraprocessed" category is worse than the average of the non-ultraprocessed category, but that's like saying that because the mean lifespan in Colorado is longer than the mean lifespan in New Mexico, then you should treat moving across the border like a death sentence and act like everyone in New Mexico will live shorter than everyone in Colorado - rather than looking at individual causitive factors.
It's not "processing" that makes food bad - it's individual things. Preserved meats are bad because of nitrates/nitrites (cooked in fat). Smoked meats are harmful because carcinogenic compounds produced by smoking. Product loaded with sugar or salt to preserve them or appeal more to consumers are harmful because of that sugar or salt. High carb foods are bad because they're high carb. Etc. It's individual causes that should be examined individually that determine whether a food is net harmful, not whether it's "ultraprocessed", and these causes remain harmful whether the food is "ultraprocessed" or not. Whey doesn't go from healthy to harmful just because you powder it. Whole wheat bread doesn't become less healthy than cake just because it's designed to last longer on a store shelf. Etc. We need to be focusing on specific causes and specific healthy eating behaviors (for example: eating more vegetables, more fibre, etc).
What I hate most about the "ultraprocessed" category is that it's a backdoor for woo to sneak into nutrition. By pretending that it's "processing in general" that's the problem, rather than specific causes, it inherently poses an alternative that anything "natural" is good (which it absolutely is not), and in turn pushes for things like organic food, fad diets, etc.
Re:This is how they kill the poor (Score: 5, Insightful)
by chefren ( 17219 ) on Wednesday February 04, 2026 @06:01AM (#65968280)
But when a life-long smoker gets lung cancer or an obese person gets type 2 diabetes, it's pretty clear what the cause is.
Re:No Jesus was NOT as socialist (Score: 5, Insightful)
by Geoffrey.landis ( 926948 ) on Tuesday February 03, 2026 @09:00PM (#65967778)
Jesus was NOT a socialist. Socialism (and Communism) are systems of GOVERMENT that take goods from some individuals to give to others, by force if necessary.
Not actually true. That is the definition of state socialism [wikipedia.org], which is the variety of socialism that we see at the country-scale in the 20th century, but, no, it's just one type of socialism. Take a look at Bakunin or Kropotkin for some varieties of socialism that are diametrically opposite. Not actually workable ideas, mind, but completely different from state socialism.
(Bakunin, for what it's worth, detested Marx's ideas. His comment about Marx's "dictatorship of the proletariat" was that it would quickly devolve into dictatorship, period. Got that one right!)
Re:No Jesus was NOT as socialist (Score: 5, Informative)
by Morromist ( 1207276 ) on Tuesday February 03, 2026 @09:04PM (#65967788)
Jesus is pretty clear that the kingdom of heaven demands that you give your wealth away in order to enter it. Is Jesus not the king and ultimate goverment of the earth? Does he not tell you repeatedly to give up your possessions to the poor? If that isn't like socialism it is even less like capitalism. Many times have I seen rich people read passages from the bible that directly say "Do not be rich". The words seem to flow around them like a vapor.
The young man saith unto him, All these things have I kept from my youth up: what lack I yet? 21Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me. But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions.
Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven. And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God. When his disciples heard it, they were exceedingly amazed, saying, Who then can be saved? But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.
Then answered Peter and said unto him, Behold, we have forsaken all, and followed thee; what shall we have therefore? And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life.
But many that are first shall be last; and the last shall be first.
Re:This is how they kill the poor (Score: 5, Insightful)
by skam240 ( 789197 ) on Tuesday February 03, 2026 @11:58PM (#65967984)
You forgot the most important part, the extremely high taxes on cigarettes which would most definitely be effective in reducing consumption of ultra processed food.
Things that will be illegal in 100 years (Score: 5, Interesting)
by hadleyburg ( 823868 ) on Tuesday February 03, 2026 @04:44PM (#65967364)
It's an interesting thought experiment to look at moral trends, and consider what activities which are currently legal may become illegal in the future.
e.g. If you were playing this game in the past, you might have correctly predicted dog fighting, or legal descrimination based on race.
Looking 100 years into the future, we might wonder about the sport of boxing, or factory farming of animals. But I hadn't considered ultra-processed food...
infinity plus gum (Score: 5, Insightful)
by Pseudonymous Powers ( 4097097 ) on Tuesday February 03, 2026 @04:54PM (#65967380)
I want a agreed-upon, stable, succinct, and intelligible definition of "ultra-processed" or I want to stop hearing the term.
Re:infinity plus gum (Score: 5, Insightful)
by taustin ( 171655 ) on Tuesday February 03, 2026 @05:58PM (#65967534)
A dictionary definition is completely useless, if not actively harmful, in a legal context.
But now feel free to use a completely useless, if not actively harmful, in a legal context dictionary definition of "high degree," "industrial processing," "large quantities," or even "food."
Re:infinity plus gum (Score: 5, Informative)
by hadleyburg ( 823868 ) on Tuesday February 03, 2026 @06:13PM (#65967580)
A dictionary definition is completely useless, if not actively harmful, in a legal context.
But now feel free to use a completely useless, if not actively harmful, in a legal context dictionary definition of "high degree," "industrial processing," "large quantities," or even "food."
I agree that for many purposes a definition will need specify quantities, rather than using vague terms like "high degree".
The Siga Index [researchgate.net] is a food classification system gives a rating from 1 to 100 based on their degree of processing, designed to identify ultra-processed foods.
Re:First, define ultra processed foods (Score: 5, Informative)
by Petersko ( 564140 ) on Tuesday February 03, 2026 @05:35PM (#65967476)
Nova classification IV.
https://www.fsp.usp.br/nupens/... [fsp.usp.br]
You'll find a definition including abstract characteristics as well as examples.
Original article (Score: 5, Informative)
by bosef1 ( 208943 ) on Tuesday February 03, 2026 @05:32PM (#65967470)
I believe this is the link to the original article, it appears to be open access / no paywall.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.co... [wiley.com]
I need to read it again, but it feels like it reads more like an essay or whitepaper than a scientific article. I am not sure the author actually conducted any testing or comparing tobacco to ultra-processed food. I am also not sure the author offered a concrete definition of ultra-processed food. The author does identify foods that are very high in simple carbohydrates (e.g. candy, M&Ms, Peeps), but I don't think anyone believes that candy is healthy.
I wish the author had provided their working definition of ultra-processed food. The way I understand, even things like home-made bread qualify as ultra-processed food. The problem is that unless you are eating only raw fruits and vegetables; pretty much everything else is processed to some degree, even if it just involves cooking. I want to understand how ultra-processing is being conceived other than "traditional" junk food, or just anything to come out of an "evil" industrial kitchen.
Re:Once again we can't get Americans (Score: 5, Interesting)
by jacks smirking reven ( 909048 ) on Tuesday February 03, 2026 @05:22PM (#65967454)
I don't know the solution, but I know giving the government more and more power/money leads to worse outcomes, not better.
I don't know about you but this is type of thing Republicans say while they take actions to make sure this is the end result, we get the government we deserve. Lest I remind everyone Michelle Obama tried to give kids more vegetables and the Republicans flipped the fuck out, “Your America is turning into a nanny state thanks to the Obama administration’s efforts to rein in the junk food industry,” said Sean Hannity.
Mike Bloomberg wanted to ban giant sodas and Sara Palin get's on stage with a Big Gulp. Elect clowns and expect clownery.
The expanded Child Tax Credit reduced childhood poverty to it's lowest level ever before it was rescinded. Social Security keeps 1/3 of our elderly from living in destitution and allows their children to produce more output during their working years. The government can do lots of good if we elect people who believe it can do those things.
Re: Once again we can't get Americans (Score: 5, Insightful)
by drinkypoo ( 153816 ) on <drink@hyperlogos.org> on Tuesday February 03, 2026 @06:23PM (#65967598)
You failed to read or understand what he wrote if you think that's the takeaway.
If you have a smoking gun which proves politics is purely a show for our benefit, present it. Otherwise fuck off with your equivocation.
Re:Once again we can't get Americans (Score: 5, Informative)
by BKX ( 5066 ) on Tuesday February 03, 2026 @09:43PM (#65967830)
Fuck right off with this both-sides shit. When's the last time the Democrats ever advocated putting children in jail, separated from the parents, en masse, or sending thousands of secret police to terrorize and murder the citizens of cities run by republicans (no, they no longer deserve to be capitalized)? Oh, that's right: NEVER. That's because Democrats actually do care about the people and the rule of law. They aren't a crazy death cult run by a tyrannic fascist. Do they have problems? Sure. Are they on a level with the republicans' outright opposition to the Constitution, the rule of law, and of every form of justice? No, not even close. The republicans have buried themselves so deep in the evil mire that they should probably start worrying about buying fire-proof suits. If Hell exists, I'll see them burn in the deepest depths of the hottest Hells, from the Heavens, while me and Obama laugh it up somewhere out there in the Galaxy, while chatting casually with Jesus and the Buddha.
(And I don't want to hear any shit about the Democrats prior to the 1970's. Before then, the parties' loyalties were divided very differently. The parties back then are NOT the parties of today. They're related only through a shared history.)
Re:Once again we can't get Americans (Score: 5, Insightful)
by FireXtol ( 1262832 ) on Tuesday February 03, 2026 @05:27PM (#65967464)
You can fight for universal access to food and care about food quality.
Ultra-processed food is not a boutique concern. It is structurally linked to poverty, healthcare costs, disability, and shortened life expectancy. Poor kids are not just hungry; they are disproportionately fed the worst food because it is cheap, subsidized, and aggressively marketed.
Treating UPFs like cigarettes is not about scolding parents or banning nuggets. It is about regulation: labeling, advertising to children, corporate accountability, and subsidy reform. Those are left economic fights, not moral panics. For the right these are business as usual. They don't want the labels, but they want to advertise poison to your children, and they don't want any accountability, but they do want your money.
Hunger and ultra-processed food are not competing concerns; they are symptoms of the same system. A politics that says âoeat least theyâ(TM)re eating somethingâ quietly accepts a two-tier society: dignity and longevity for some, bare survival for others.
Let's be clear:
No child should go hungry.
No child should be structurally pushed into lifelong metabolic disease because the cheapest calories are engineered junk.
Corporations should not profit from poisoning people while the public pays the healthcare bill.
Re:Once again we can't get Americans (Score: 5, Informative)
by Bert64 ( 520050 ) on <bert.slashdot@firenzee@com> on Wednesday February 04, 2026 @05:06AM (#65968254)
It's cheaper because the chicken nuggets are made from a less desirable waste product. The whole chicken contains the premium pieces (breasts, legs, wings) as well as a small amount of waste.
The chicken nuggets are made from the waste after the prime pieces have been cut off and sold for a higher price. When you buy a bag of chicken nuggets you're not buying whole chicken, you're buying the waste from several chickens where the premium pieces have already been sold.