A new study has argued that ultra-processed foods (UPFs) need to be labelled as ‘addictive’.
The report, which was recently published on The BMJ, took in 281 studies from 36 different countries. From their combined research, scientists from the US, Brazil and Spain have concluded that one in seven adults and one in eight children could be addicted to UPFs.
In terms of ‘addiction’, scientists explained that people who regularly eat UPFs can experience intense cravings, withdrawal struggles, and an inability to control intake. Addicted consumers will also continue to eat these foods despite obesity, poorer physical and mental health, and lower quality of life.
“There is converging and consistent support for the validity and clinical relevance of food addiction,” noted Ashley Gearhardt, a psychology professor at the University of Michigan.
Alexandra DiFeliceantonio, assistant professor at the Fralin Biomedical Research Institute, also said: “Given how prevalent these foods are – they make up 58% of calories consumed in the United States – there is so much we don’t know.”
The study’s authors then went on to explain the science behind the term ‘addictive’ for ultra-processed foods.
“Refined carbohydrates or fats evoke similar levels of extracellular dopamine in the brain striatum to those seen with addictive substances such as nicotine and alcohol,” they detailed.
“Based on these behavioural and biological parallels, foods that deliver high levels of refined carbohydrates or added fats are a strong candidate for an addictive substance,” they wrote.
At the end of the report, the study’s experts laid out their reasons for why they believe UPF packaging and advertising should state that it is ‘addictive’.
“While further careful research is needed to determine the exact mechanism by which these foods trigger addictive responses, UPFs high in refined carbohydrates and fats are clearly consumed in addictive patterns and are leading to deleterious health outcomes,” they argued.
“Understanding of these foods as addictive could lead to novel approaches in the realm of social justice, clinical care, and policy approaches,” they concluded.
