Our Complicated Relationship with Ultraprocessed Foods: More Science Than Willpower
In a moment that many of us can relate to, I found myself mindlessly eating gummy worms from my kitchen drawer right after lunch – despite not even particularly liking them. This common experience reflects a deeper relationship with highly processed foods that scientists are increasingly understanding as less about personal weakness and more about how these products are engineered to override our natural satiety signals.
Researchers are now building a compelling case that ultraprocessed foods share more similarities with addictive substances than with natural foods. These products – typically combinations of salts, fats, and sugars stripped from their natural sources and recombined with additives – can hijack our brain’s reward system in ways reminiscent of alcohol, nicotine, and even opioids. The consequences of this relationship are far-reaching, considering that ultraprocessed foods now comprise over half of the average American’s caloric intake.
“This stuff isn’t food. It’s a hedonically optimized substance created through processing to make corporations a lot of money,” explains psychologist Ashley Gearhardt of the University of Michigan. Some scientists have even begun referring to these items as “foodlike products” rather than actual food. Unlike minimally processed foods (like fruits or meats), processed ingredients (like sugar or butter), or traditionally processed foods (like cheese), ultraprocessed foods contain limited whole food components and numerous additives designed to maximize appeal and consumption.
What makes these products particularly concerning is how they’re engineered to be “hyperpalatable” – irresistibly delicious in a way that natural foods simply aren’t. Take children’s breakfast cereals, which studies show have decreased in fiber and protein while increasing in fat, salt, and sugar over recent years. These changes aren’t accidental; they’re deliberate formulations that make it difficult to stop eating even when we’re physically full. Brain imaging studies have revealed that ultraprocessed foods trigger neurochemical changes similar to those observed with drugs or alcohol, essentially rewiring our brain’s reward circuitry.
The addiction framework provides important context for understanding why willpower often fails when facing these products. About 14 percent of adults and 12 percent of children meet the criteria for food addiction according to the Yale Food Addiction Scale – figures comparable to alcohol use disorder prevalence. Many people report intense cravings, repeated failed attempts to stop consuming these foods, and continued use despite awareness of negative health consequences – all hallmarks of substance use disorders.
“We have enough data at this point to understand that ultraprocessed foods, on the population level, are killing us, are leaving us to live shorter lives with a higher disease burden, and we’re telling people, ‘Well, stop eating them,'” says neuroscientist Alex DiFeliceantonio. But through an addiction lens, that strategy falls short. If these foods are specifically designed to override our decision-making capacity, individual choices alone cannot solve the problem.
The most promising solutions may come through stronger regulations, similar to those implemented in Chile, where warning labels, marketing restrictions, and taxes on unhealthy foods have successfully shifted purchasing patterns. Some companies are already responding to public concern by developing less processed alternatives, including products designed for people taking GLP-1 medications that emphasize protein rather than sweetness or excessive processing.
“The more that the conversation is shifted to the individual and away from the actual source of the problem, which I think is the addictive foods, then we don’t have a real solution,” says psychologist Tera Fazzino. “As a public, we deserve to be protected from the things that can cause us harm.”
Recognizing the addictive potential of ultraprocessed foods doesn’t absolve us of responsibility, but it helps explain why cutting back can feel so difficult. With greater awareness of how these products affect our brains and bodies, we can make more informed choices and advocate for systemic changes that promote healthier food environments for everyone.
