Ultra-processed foods (UPFs) “share key engineering strategies adopted from the tobacco industry” and should be subject to similar restrictions – including taxes, warning labels and limiting availability – the authors of a new scientific review argue. 

In a paper published today, researchers at Harvard, the University of Michigan and Duke University draw on data from the fields of addiction science, nutrition and public health history to make their comparisons. The paper argues that ultra-processed foods (UPFs) should be understood not merely as nutritionally poor choices, but as industrially engineered products designed to drive compulsive consumption.

The authors identify five core engineering strategies common to both industries. 

Dose optimisation: cigarettes precisely calibrate nicotine to maximize reward without aversion, while UPFs finely tune combinations of refined carbohydrates and fats to hit a hedonic “sweet spot” that promotes craving and overconsumption. 

Speed of delivery: cigarettes deliver nicotine to the brain within seconds through inhalation and chemical modification, while UPFs are processed to break down natural food matrices, accelerating digestion and absorption of sugars and fats. Faster delivery produces stronger dopamine responses and greater addictive potential. 

‘Hedonic engineering’ is central to both products, the researchers say. Cigarettes and UPFs rely heavily on additives, flavourings, texture modifiers, and aroma compounds to intensify sensory cues while decoupling pleasure from nutritional value or satiety. In UPFs, rapidly fading flavour “bursts,” melt-in-the-mouth textures, and dynamic contrasts are deliberately engineered to encourage repeated intake. 

Environmental ubiquity: both products are made inexpensive, widely available, and socially normalised, embedding them into daily routines and increasing cue-driven consumption. 

Deceptive reformulation and health-washing: both industries have introduced “lighter,” “reduced,” or “health-oriented” versions of products that preserve reinforcing properties while deflecting regulation and public concern.

The paper’s authors claim that the design features inherent in both tobacco and UPF products “collectively hijack human biology, undermine individual agency, and contribute heavily to disease and health care costs”. They say UPFs should be evaluated “not only through a nutritional lens but also as addictive, industrially engineered substances”. They additionally argue that lessons from tobacco regulation, including litigation, marketing restrictions, and structural interventions, offer a “roadmap for reducing UPF-related harm” and that public health efforts “must shift from individual responsibility to food industry accountability”, recognising UPFs as potent drivers of preventable disease.