Ultra-processed foods accused of fostering addiction, prompting regulatory and health debates

Emerging research suggests certain packaged foods may behave like addictive substances, with implications for public health policies and individual wellbeing, as scientists explore potential treatments and regulations.

The idea that certain packaged foods can behave less like ordinary meals and more like addictive substances is moving from the margins of nutrition science into the mainstream. Researchers are increasingly focusing on ultra-processed products , items built from industrial ingredients, additives and refined starches, rather than whole foods , because they appear to drive cravings, overeating and repeated attempts to cut back that end in failure. National Geographic reported that these foods now account for a substantial share of the average American diet, while other summaries of the research say signs of addiction appear in a meaningful minority of adults and children. That shift has prompted a wider debate over whether the issue is simply poor self-control or a biological response to food designed to be hard to resist.

The argument has gained traction largely because of the work of Ashley Gearhardt, a University of Michigan psychologist who helped develop the Yale Food Addiction Scale. According to the reporting, Gearhardt was once met with ridicule for suggesting food could be addictive, but the field has since become far more receptive. The scale adapts criteria used in substance-use disorders, and studies using it have found that roughly 14% of adults and up to 15% of young people worldwide may meet the threshold for ultra-processed food addiction, with higher rates among people living with obesity. A separate summary of a University of Michigan study released in September 2025 suggests middle-aged adults, especially women, may be particularly vulnerable, raising concerns that today’s patterns could shape tomorrow’s health outcomes.

Scientists make an important distinction between processed foods and ultra-processed foods. Food has been altered for thousands of years through cooking, drying and salting, but the NOVA system classifies products by how far they have been transformed. At one end are minimally processed items such as fruit, vegetables and meat; at the other are products assembled from substances rarely found in home kitchens, including modified starches, protein isolates and additives that change flavour, colour and texture. Even so, not every processed item is cause for alarm. Pasteurised milk and iodised salt, for example, are processed for clear health reasons. The concern is with products engineered to maximise appeal, not with processing itself.

That engineering appears to matter. Researchers say combinations of fat, sugar, salt and rapidly digested carbohydrates can create a powerful reward signal in the brain, sometimes described as a “bliss point”, that makes it difficult to stop eating. Brain-imaging studies have found that these foods activate reward and decision-making regions more strongly than foods dominated by a single nutrient. Nicole Avena, a neuroscientist quoted in the coverage, has argued that the speed at which the body absorbs these foods is central to their habit-forming quality. The comparison is often made to nicotine, where faster delivery tends to mean a stronger addictive pull.

The evidence for a dependence-like pattern also shows up when people try to quit. Studies cited in the related coverage suggest that 18% to 30% of adults and nearly 19% of young people report withdrawal symptoms after cutting back. These can include headaches, fatigue, irritability and an intense focus on cravings, often peaking within a few days before easing over the next one or two weeks. Researchers say that time frame resembles nicotine withdrawal closely enough to strengthen the case that ultra-processed food addiction is a distinct phenomenon rather than just a matter of weak discipline. One long-term weight-loss study also found that symptoms linked to ultra-processed food addiction were the strongest predictor of dropping out of treatment and losing less weight, ahead of stress, depression and other commonly studied factors.

The public health response is beginning to take shape. According to the summaries, Chile has already used warning labels, marketing limits and taxes to curb sales of these products, and early results suggest consumers are changing what they buy. In the United States, California has passed a law that will remove the most harmful ultra-processed foods from public school meals by 2035. Researchers are also studying whether medicines first developed for alcohol dependence, including naltrexone and bupropion, may help reduce cravings. At the same time, lawsuits and consumer campaigns are pushing a broader question into the open: whether the real problem is individual choice, or a food system built to make overconsumption easier.

For parents and caregivers, the practical takeaway is not that every packaged food is harmful. It is that some products are deliberately made to be far more tempting than ordinary food, and for some people that can lead to real cravings, loss of control and repeated relapse. Warning signs include eating beyond fullness, hiding food, and struggling to cut back despite wanting to do so. The growing scientific consensus does not call for panic, but it does suggest that advice centred only on willpower may miss the bigger picture. For many families, the challenge is less about moral weakness than about navigating a food environment that has been carefully designed to keep people coming back.