A new U.S. study from Harvard, Michigan, and Duke argues ultra-processed foods (UPFs) should be regulated similarly to cigarettes due to addictive design and industrial engineering aimed at compulsive consumption.

The authors contend that health claims such as low fat or sugar free can obscure serious risks and amount to health washing.

Published February 3 in Milbank Quarterly, the study compares UPF production methods and marketing to those of tobacco.

Public health voices warn that weak regulation in Africa and elsewhere could worsen health systems under rising non-communicable diseases, calling for government-led interventions.

The article situates UPFs within ongoing debates about their health impact and policy responses, reflecting differing views among researchers and health advocates.

Policy implications discussed include restricting child-targeted marketing, limiting school availability, and adopting tobacco-like governance measures such as litigation and structural interventions.

Experts debate whether regulation should mirror tobacco control or focus on dietary quality, reformulation standards, and diversifying the food system to reduce harm.

Geographic and economic context shows UPF dominance in calories in developed countries and rising exposure in developing nations, including Africa.

,

Critics note limitations in applying tobacco-style regulation to foods, potential economic impact, and questions about the strength and generalizability of the findings.

The piece argues food’s essential nature makes UPF regulation urgent to curb exposure, especially among children.

Debate continues on whether UPFs are pharmacologically addictive or mainly exploit learned reward pathways, influencing regulatory strategy.