At a Senate hearing last December, former FDA commissioner Dr. Robert Califf made a blunt statement: “These foods are probably addictive.”

He was referring to everyday snacks like chips, soda, and cookies, foods that millions of people eat daily. Unlike whole foods such as apples or brown rice, which rarely cause compulsive eating, these industrial products are designed to deliver intense and rapid stimulation to the brain’s reward system, much like addictive substances. Researchers are increasingly finding that some of these ultra-processed products may affect the brain in ways similar to addictive substances.

A New Kind of Addiction?

We often say we’re “addicted” to something, whether it’s your favorite series or a matcha latte, but here, we’re talking about actual, physical addictionl

For decades, the idea that food could be addictive was considered fringe. In 2017, when Gearhardt presented her research at a scientific conference, some audience members heckled her. But now, that once-controversial theory is gaining mainstream traction—and fast.

A major paper published this month in Nature Medicine synthesizes findings from nearly 300 studies across 36 countries. It concludes that ultra-processed foods can hijack the brain’s reward circuits, triggering cravings, compulsive use, and a loss of control, all core features of addiction as defined in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, or DSM.

These foods are typically high in refined sugars, salt, and fats and low in nutrients. Think of pizza, soda, candy, chips. They’re not just tasty; they’re methodically formulated for maximum reinforcement. That reward sensation comes from how these foods light up the brain’s dopamine system.

Dopamine, the chemical messenger behind our sense of pleasure and reward, plays a central role in all forms of addiction. In a normal eating context, dopamine helps us learn what foods to seek out. But addictive substances like cocaine or nicotine hijack this system, flooding it with reward signals far beyond what natural stimuli provide. Ultra-processed foods, researchers now argue, may do something similar — especially in certain individuals.

In a recent National Institutes of Health study, scientists scanned the brains of people drinking an ultra-processed milkshake. Some participants had a small dopamine surge. These “responders” not only rated the milkshake as more pleasurable but also ate nearly twice as many cookies at a buffet later that week.

“It’s just more complicated than we originally thought,” wrote Kevin Hall and Valerie Darcey, the NIH study’s lead authors, in a statement. Still, the findings align with prior research on addictive drugs. People whose brains respond more strongly tend to want more and often can’t stop.

Is Junk Food a Public Health Crisis?

One of the most startling revelations of the Nature Medicine study is just how closely ultra-processed foods mimic addictive drugs—not just in brain imaging, but in behavior.

People who report addiction-like symptoms from these foods often have repeated failed attempts to cut back. They continue eating them despite knowing the health consequences. Many also experience withdrawal-like symptoms when they try to quit. These are the same behavioral patterns seen in substance use disorders like alcohol or nicotine addiction.

But despite the mounting evidence, neither the DSM nor the World Health Organization’s International Classification of Diseases recognizes ultra-processed food addiction as a medical diagnosis — not even as a “condition in need of further study.” That’s a double standard, researchers argue. Nitrous oxide use disorder and caffeine use disorder were added to the DSM with far less supporting evidence.

“It’s time ultra-processed food addiction was held to the same scientific standard,” co-author Erica LaFata, assistant research professor at Drexel University’s Center for Weight, Eating, and Lifestyle Science, told MedicalXpress.

The stakes are enormous. A 2021 meta-analysis estimated that about 14% of adults and 12% of children worldwide meet criteria for ultra-processed food addiction — roughly the same prevalence as alcohol use disorder. And children, researchers warn, are often the primary targets of aggressive food marketing.

“We’ve created a food environment flooded with products that function more like nicotine than nutrition,” Gearhardt and her colleagues wrote.

Toward a Tobacco-Like Reckoning?

The analogy to tobacco keeps coming up — and for good reason. Processed food companies, like tobacco giants before them, have spent decades engineering their products to maximize consumption. They isolate sugar and fat, amplify flavors with additives, enhance texture, and design eye-catching packaging. The result: products that are hard to resist and even harder to quit.

“If addictive food products were to be regulated like addictive substances, we’d need a taxonomy,” said the authors in Nature Medicine. “But we don’t delay action on tobacco just because there are 17,000 products. We act because the harm is real.”

If ultra-processed foods were to be regulated like addictive substances, researchers argue, a clear system for classifying them would eventually be needed. But they stress that waiting for a perfect taxonomy shouldn’t delay public health action. Tobacco regulation, for example, was implemented even though thousands of varied products existed. What mattered was the growing evidence of harm.

That harm now includes rising rates of childhood obesity, Type 2 diabetes, and fatty liver disease. In response, the FDA and NIH recently launched a joint initiative modeled after the Tobacco Regulatory Science Program. The aim: to bring addiction science to the heart of food policy and transform how we regulate what people eat.

Meanwhile, a lawsuit filed in Philadelphia accuses 11 major food companies of deliberately designing and marketing addictive products to children, echoing the landmark litigation that eventually dismantled Big Tobacco’s public image.

Gearhardt and her colleagues are calling for bold action: Recognition of ultra-processed food addiction in medical diagnostic systems. Funding for research and treatment. Public health campaigns, clearer labeling, and restrictions on advertising to children.

What Comes Next

Just as the scientific community once hesitated to call tobacco addictive, we now stand at a similar crossroads. The evidence for food addiction (especially when it comes to ultra-processed snacks) is growing. So are the public health consequences. But the industry lobby is strong.

Recognition won’t come easily. Industry lobbying, scientific debate, and public misunderstanding stand in the way. But the researchers behind this movement argue that we’ve waited long enough. But it’s a battle worth fighting.

If we believed people when they said they couldn’t stop smoking, we should believe them now when they say they can’t stop eating these foods.

Until we do, the food industry’s most dangerous products may remain hidden in plain sight — in school lunches, supermarket aisles, and late-night cravings — masquerading as dinner.