The latest news, trends, analysis, interviews and podcasts from the global food and beverage industry

Ultra-processed foods (UPFs) are facing mounting calls for tighter regulation akin to tobacco, as new academic research and consumer data point to growing concern over their health impacts.

A paper released on Tuesday by researchers from Harvard University, the University of Michigan and Duke University argues that UPFs share key characteristics with cigarettes, including being engineered to maximise consumption and stimulate reward pathways linked to addiction. The authors say these products warrant regulation “commensurate with the significant public health risks they pose”.

The study, published in the health policy journal Milbank Quarterly, comes as governments face rising healthcare costs linked to diet-related disease, and as pressure grows on food manufacturers to reformulate products and improve transparency.

UPFs, which include soft drinks, packaged snacks and many ready-to-eat foods, account for more than half of the average UK diet – the highest proportion in Europe – according to public health data.

While the comparison with tobacco remains contested within the scientific community, the report signals a shift in the regulatory debate away from individual responsibility towards industry accountability, including potential marketing restrictions, warning labels and structural interventions.

For F&B manufacturers, the more immediate risk may lie in changing consumer expectations.

New research from consumer insight firm Attest shows that 48% of UK consumers support tobacco-style health warnings on ultra-processed foods, while 46% say they are prioritising brands that clearly explain what goes into their products.

Todd Latham, chief executive of Attest, said the findings highlight a growing challenge for the industry.

“The body of evidence linking ultra-processed foods to chronic health conditions, including cancer, has grown rapidly in recent years and our data shows consumer awareness is catching up,” he noted. “What’s striking is that many consumers are worried about ultra-processed foods, but don’t feel confident they can actually define what a UPF is or spot one in a list of ingredients.

“It is a kind of invisible threat and that feels very unsettling.”

Latham added that the combination of high UPF consumption and economic pressure created a difficult balancing act for brands.

“In a country that consumes more ultra-processed food than anywhere else in Europe, this creates a clear challenge for food and beverage brands. Consumers remain extremely cost-conscious and continue to trade down to cheaper options, but that hasn’t reduced their expectations. They want radical transparency and honesty from brands so they can make informed choices that work for both their finances and their health.”

The debate gained momentum as the UK government on Tuesday set out a new ten-year cancer strategy, while separate studies have linked high UPF consumption with reduced life expectancy among cancer patients.

Not all researchers support treating UPFs in the same regulatory category as tobacco. Critics argue that food, unlike cigarettes, is essential to survival, and that health risks may stem as much from dietary displacement – the replacement of fibre-rich whole foods – as from processing itself.

Nonetheless, the direction of travel is clear. As scrutiny intensifies, food manufacturers are likely to face increasing pressure to justify processing methods, simplify formulations and communicate ingredient choices more clearly to consumers and regulators alike.

For the sector, the question may no longer be whether ultra-processed foods attract regulation – but how quickly brands adapt before it arrives.