For years, tobacco companies have refined their marketing techniques and food processing methods to hook consumers on cigarettes. In the 1980s, they shifted gears and began acquiring major food companies, applying these same strategies to promote ultra-processed foods.
Laura Schmidt, a researcher at the University of California, San Francisco, has been examining old tobacco company records. She’s among several researchers who contributed to a recent series of papers in a special section of the American Journal of Public Health. The papers argue that reducing ultra-processed food consumption should be viewed as a public health challenge akin to the fight against tobacco use.
These ultra-processed foods—like salty chips, sugary sodas, and ready-to-eat meals—are increasingly prevalent in American diets and are linked to various health issues. Now, researchers believe it’s time to take action.
According to Nicholas Chartres, associate editor of the journal and a co-author of the studies, this research “adds to a growing body of evidence” that these food products contribute to chronic diseases. They argue that these foods exhibit addictive qualities, stemming from their origins in the strategies of tobacco and food industries.
How cigarette science influenced food production
During the 1980s, major tobacco companies started venturing into the food sector, acquiring companies like Kraft and Nabisco. Schmidt points out that they had been gathering data on how to enhance the pleasurable and addictive traits of cigarettes for years, a knowledge they then applied to food production.
“The exact technologies used to manipulate nicotine’s addictive properties with sugars and artificial flavors were repurposed for ultra-processed foods,” Schmidt explains. Additives now characterize many ultra-processed foods, as her study details the development of products like Lunchables, showcasing how Philip Morris utilized these flavoring techniques.
Marketing tactics borrowed from cigarette promotion also found their way into food advertising. Terms such as “king-size,” originally used for cigarettes, were repurposed for larger candy bars and snacks. Additionally, tobacco companies marketed “light” cigarettes, which influenced the development of reduced-fat food products designed to retain customers concerned about health.
Fazzino’s previous studies have shown that between the 1980s and mid-2000s, while tobacco firms owned significant food brands, they flooded the market with ultra-processed foods, creating products that were particularly appealing thanks to their elevated levels of fats, sugars, and sodium, which trigger the brain’s reward system.
Moreover, a former Philip Morris CEO remarked on the similarity of the businesses surrounding ultra-processed foods and cigarettes, both considered low-cost consumer goods with massive markets.
As of now, tobacco companies have not responded to inquiries about these issues, though the Consumer Brands Association emphasizes the safety standards and variety of products available in the market.
Expanding the research landscape
The new research also delves into the health and environmental consequences of the ultra-processed food industry. Before this, significant links had already been established between excessive consumption of these foods and health problems, ranging from obesity to diabetes and other serious conditions. Some recent papers even indicate a correlation between high intake of ultra-processed foods and cognitive decline.
Additionally, these foods impact the environment; a recent editorial pointed out that companies like Coca-Cola and Pepsi are among the top global plastic polluters.
A potential turning point?
Studies included in the recent issue suggest that a majority of Americans, regardless of their political affiliation, support government regulation of ultra-processed foods. Lindsey Smith Taillie, a professor at the University of North Carolina and co-author of the papers, suggests that there may be a combination of strong scientific evidence, public backing, and political momentum that could lead to meaningful policy shifts similar to those seen with tobacco regulation.
While the food industry is powerful, experts believe that changes might initially occur at the state level. Some states have already begun restricting synthetic dyes in foods, for instance.
Litigation could also serve as a strategy against the ultra-processed food industry, similar to the lawsuits against tobacco companies in the past, argues Jennifer Pomeranz from New York University. She notes that with growing public demand for safer food supplies, now could be a pivotal moment for reform.
In fact, she recalls that the last time public concern about food safety surged like this was around the introduction of the 1906 Food and Drug Act.
