The Case for Ultra-Processed Foods Regulation
A recent study has shed light on the alarming similarities between ultra-processed foods and cigarettes, sparking calls for stricter regulation. Researchers from Harvard, Michigan, and Duke University have likened the two to "two sides of the same coin," citing a shared history of manipulating consumers and exploiting psychological vulnerabilities.
Ultra-processed foods (UPFs), which comprise soft drinks, packaged snacks like crisps and biscuits, and other industrially manufactured products, are engineered to encourage addiction and consumption. The production process shares parallels with cigarette manufacturing, and manufacturers use similar tactics to optimize the "doses" of UPFs and accelerate their impact on reward pathways in the body.
The study's authors argue that marketing claims on UPFs, such as being "low fat" or "sugar free," amount to "health washing" aimed at stalling regulation. This tactic is eerily reminiscent of cigarette filters advertised as protective innovations in the 1950s, which offered little meaningful benefit.
The researchers contend that many UPFs share more characteristics with cigarettes than minimally processed fruits and vegetables, warranting regulation commensurate with the significant public health risks they pose. Prof Ashley Gearhardt, a clinical psychologist specializing in addiction, notes that her patients often report feeling addicted to UPFs, craving them, and struggling to quit.
The parallels between UPFs and tobacco are not just superficial; the industry's tactics to create products that hook consumers mirror those used in the cigarette industry. The authors suggest that lessons from tobacco regulation could inform strategies for reducing harm related to UPFs, emphasizing the need to shift public health efforts from individual responsibility to food industry accountability.
However, not everyone is convinced of the equivalence between UPFs and cigarettes. Prof Martin Warren warns against "overreach" in comparisons, questioning whether UPFs are inherently addictive or if they primarily exploit learned preferences and convenience. He cautions that regulatory responses should consider whether adverse health effects arise from the contents of UPFs or replace whole foods rich in fiber and nutrients.
The stakes are high, particularly in Africa where weak government regulation has enabled corporations to profit from the sale of harmful products. Dr Githinji Gitahi, chief executive of Amref Health Africa, notes that this trend threatens the collapse of already strained health systems as non-communicable diseases rise. The study's findings underscore the need for publicly led interventions and stricter regulations on UPFs to protect public health.
A recent study has shed light on the alarming similarities between ultra-processed foods and cigarettes, sparking calls for stricter regulation. Researchers from Harvard, Michigan, and Duke University have likened the two to "two sides of the same coin," citing a shared history of manipulating consumers and exploiting psychological vulnerabilities.
Ultra-processed foods (UPFs), which comprise soft drinks, packaged snacks like crisps and biscuits, and other industrially manufactured products, are engineered to encourage addiction and consumption. The production process shares parallels with cigarette manufacturing, and manufacturers use similar tactics to optimize the "doses" of UPFs and accelerate their impact on reward pathways in the body.
The study's authors argue that marketing claims on UPFs, such as being "low fat" or "sugar free," amount to "health washing" aimed at stalling regulation. This tactic is eerily reminiscent of cigarette filters advertised as protective innovations in the 1950s, which offered little meaningful benefit.
The researchers contend that many UPFs share more characteristics with cigarettes than minimally processed fruits and vegetables, warranting regulation commensurate with the significant public health risks they pose. Prof Ashley Gearhardt, a clinical psychologist specializing in addiction, notes that her patients often report feeling addicted to UPFs, craving them, and struggling to quit.
The parallels between UPFs and tobacco are not just superficial; the industry's tactics to create products that hook consumers mirror those used in the cigarette industry. The authors suggest that lessons from tobacco regulation could inform strategies for reducing harm related to UPFs, emphasizing the need to shift public health efforts from individual responsibility to food industry accountability.
However, not everyone is convinced of the equivalence between UPFs and cigarettes. Prof Martin Warren warns against "overreach" in comparisons, questioning whether UPFs are inherently addictive or if they primarily exploit learned preferences and convenience. He cautions that regulatory responses should consider whether adverse health effects arise from the contents of UPFs or replace whole foods rich in fiber and nutrients.
The stakes are high, particularly in Africa where weak government regulation has enabled corporations to profit from the sale of harmful products. Dr Githinji Gitahi, chief executive of Amref Health Africa, notes that this trend threatens the collapse of already strained health systems as non-communicable diseases rise. The study's findings underscore the need for publicly led interventions and stricter regulations on UPFs to protect public health.
these ultra processed foods are seriously bad news! interesting how some profs think they're just exploiting learned preferences 
but it seems like a clear case of food industry manipulation 
gotta get the governments to step in 
and regulate those pesky UPFs ASAP 
And what about the economic impact on small businesses and communities who rely on these industries for income? It's a slippery slope, you know? 
. I mean, come on, we're comparing them to cigarettes? It's like saying a Big Mac is just as deadly as a pack of Marlboros 
. But seriously, the study raises some valid points about how manufacturers manipulate us into buying more of these junk foods. Like, who needs all those added preservatives and artificial flavorings anyway? 
. And yeah, we do need stricter regulations on these foods, especially in Africa where access to healthy food is already super limited. But maybe instead of banning them altogether, we should focus on encouraging more sustainable and healthier food options 
.
. You'd go in and order a milkshake or something, and they'd be all flashy with the colors and the straw, but you knew it wasn't doing your body any favors. Now we've got these "new" foods that are basically just sugar water with some mysterious stuff thrown in 
. It's crazy how similar the marketing tactics are to back then – like they're trying to make you feel good about buying something that's bad for you 
.
. I mean, what's really going on here? These companies are just trying to make a quick buck off of our ignorance and addiction. It's time we wake up and start holding them accountable 
.
. Nowadays, it's all about convenience and instant gratification... but at what cost? 
. The production process is super interesting - it's like they're playing with our emotions and brain chemistry 
. The idea that these foods are designed to be addictive is wild 
.
... those "low fat" or "sugar free" claims just sound too good (and bad) to be true 
. And yeah, lessons from tobacco regulation could definitely help us navigate the UPF landscape 
.
. Maybe it's more about convenience and learned preferences 
... let's not ignore the warning signs 
.
? We need to acknowledge that food is more than just a product - it's our bodies and our well-being 
.
They're trying to trick us into thinking these products are healthy when really they're not. It's like, hello! We can see right through that! 
They’re basically engineered to be addictive & exploit your brain chemistry 
It's time for us to take a page from the tobacco industry's book and start holding them accountable. Not to mention, these foods are literally killing people, especially in areas where healthcare systems are already under strain. We need some serious intervention to protect public health! 
It's like they're trying to trick us into thinking they're not as bad for us as we think.
Let's take a stand against the food industry's dirty tricks and demand better for ourselves! 
plus, the way they're marketed is like a masterclass in manipulation 
what can be done about it tho?!
. And don't even get me started on the marketing tactics – I mean, come on, who tries to convince someone they need to buy more of something by telling them it's "convenient"? 
.
I can totally see why you'd want to freak out about all these processed foods! It's like they're designed to get into our heads and grab us tight... 
But what really gets me is that it's not just the food itself, but how we consume them in a society that's already kinda messed up. 
It's all so... exhausting! 
Can't we just get some rest? Maybe take a step back from the processed food trap and think about what we're really doing to ourselves?