Study: From Tobacco to Ultraprocessed Food: How Industry Engineering Fuels the Epidemic of Preventable Disease (DOI: 10.1111/1468-0009.70066)
That bag of chips you swore you'd only eat a handful of. The energy drink that somehow turns into three. The late-night fast-food run-whether it involves pizza, burgers or tacos-that feels impossible to resist.
A new study suggests that it's not just about willpower.
Researchers from the University of Michigan, Harvard University and Duke University argue that many ultraprocessed foods-including packaged snacks, sugary beverages, ready-to-eat meals and many fast foods-aren't simply junk food or bad nutritional choices. They're industrially engineered products designed to keep you coming back-using strategies once used to sell cigarettes.
The research, which appears in the current issue of The Milbank Quarterly, draws on addiction science, nutrition research and the history of tobacco regulation. It found striking similarities between ultraprocessed foods and tobacco products-both deliberately formulated to amplify reward in the brain, encourage habitual use and shape public perception in ways that protect profits.
In other words, it may not be by accident that certain snacks feel impossible to put down, said study first author Ashley Gearhardt, U-M professor of clinical psychology and an expert at U-M's Institute for Healthcare Policy and Innovation.
This reframing matters-especially for young adults navigating food environments packed with cheap, hyperpalatable, always-available options, the researchers noted. For decades, public health messaging has emphasized personal responsibility: make better choices, try harder, have more self-control.
But the newly published analysis argues it's time to change the focus. Instead of focusing only on individual decisions, the authors call for a shift toward examining the larger systems that shape what's on shelves, what's affordable and what's heavily marketed. Just as tobacco regulation eventually moved beyond blaming smokers to holding companies accountable, the researchers suggest food policy may need a similar evolution.
Gearhardt said the takeaway isn't that eating is the same as smoking. It's that some of today's most common foods may be designed in ways that make moderation unusually difficult.
For a generation that grew up surrounded by brightly packaged snacks, drive-thru convenience and 24/7 delivery apps, the question becomes bigger than diet trends or personal discipline.
"It's about understanding how products are engineered-and who benefits when 'just one more bite' turns into a habit," Gearhardt said.
The researchers hope the findings spark conversation, especially among young adults who are shaping the future of food culture, health policy and consumer expectations.
Because if certain foods are designed to be hard to resist, the conversation about health might need to move beyond blame-and toward accountability, researchers said.
