📣 Claiming ultra-processed foods (UPFs) are as addictive as drugs of abuse is an unfounded exaggeration. 📌 No single chemical component in UPFs has been proven addictive in the same way as nicotine. This does not rule out the possibility of food addiction — absence of evidence is not evidence of absence — but it does call for more rigorous research before accepting such comparisons. To address the lack of direct neurobiological evidence, researchers at the National Institutes of Health put the dopamine theory to a rigorous test, exploring the connection between the brain’s reward system and UPFs. In it, the researchers tested how this system would respond to the sugar-and-fat bomb better known as a milkshake. They hypothesized that if UPFs were truly “addictive,” drinking a milkshake should trigger a sharp rise in dopamine levels, similar to what happens with addictive drugs or pleasurable activities. Yet, to the authors’ surprise, the milkshake did not flood the brain with dopamine like drugs of abuse. Instead, it produced responses in the reward system that were virtually imperceptible. These results do not dismiss the experiences of individuals who struggle to control their intake of such foods, nor do they claim that addictive effects are impossible. However, they challenge the narrative that dopaminergic responses equivalent to those triggered by illicit drugs drive excessive consumption of UPFs. The big question remains: are ultra-processed foods addictive? If we follow NOVA’s definition, classifying any food with industrial ingredients and processes as ultra-processed, without considering its nutritional composition, the answer is simple: NO. ❌ When focusing on foods high in sugar, fat, and often sodium, the issue becomes more complex. To date, no convincing evidence demonstrates that addiction to these products exists, but that doesn’t mean it is impossible. 👉Ultra-processed foods have become a primary scapegoat for nearly every conceivable health problem. When researchers cannot explain the cause or increased risk of a disease, they often cite observational studies linking these products to adverse outcomes. This concern is partly justified: beyond their processing, many ultra-processed foods are calorie-dense, hyperpalatable, and often modified in texture, which can accelerate consumption by increasing the number of bites per minute. https://lnkd.in/dbcRRSCz
Holger Toschka
1mo
YES; The NOVA scheme is purpose- and processing driven, not composition! The Institutional decision process is done at the public health faculty at the University of São Paulo’s and its happening in 4 steps: 1. Search for markers of ultra‑processing 2. Processing method check 3. Purpose assessment 4, Consensus classification. Purpose is here: If If the main aim of a food items is convenience and palatability (guess that means hedonic value or organoleptic quality) . In this scheme every food items aiming "superiority in liking" is UPF. And basically all commercial food products are purposely designed for superiority (vs. current). And then unfortunately, all industrially made food are "guilty as charged"! And if one wishes to drive the demonisation of modern food further, one can translate the maladaptive pattern of substance into the eating domain and you get: "Food addiction"! (see: YFAS scale)! - Nearly 20 years old - but already at that time: purpose driven!
João Dornellas
1mo
In fact, the NOVA classification makes no sense at all. It's a lot of play on facile words to create a narrative. Even the word "ultra-processed" was plucked from thin air, or from medical "Google" (pubmed), as the author already said. Narratives and more narratives. That's all.
Very nice decoding of the recent article on brain dopamine responses to ultra-processed foods (milkshakes). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cmet.2025.02.002
Thomas Henle
1mo
Very interesting, thank you! Another contribution to the falsification of the NOVA ideology.
Thank you for injecting some sense into the UPF debate!
Well said. #NO2NOVA !
Professor at University of Alberta
1moA very interesting and welcome perspective! I would be surprised if any food was addictive in the sense of nicotine, cannabis or other, illegal drugs but: Soft texture and high salt / fat / sugar content (hyperpalatibility) are known to induce higher calorie intake. It is evident that much of the food supply in developed countries results in devastating long-term health outcomes, it is also evident that the Nova criteria and the terminology used therein don't do "the thing" justice. Processing may not be the problem. But: what is the right terminology and which are the right criteria? The science does not seem to be quite there yet. California's definition of ultra-processed foods (https://lnkd.in/gWaf3FM9) in an effort to ban their sales in schools, is respectable but imperfect. The FDA is aiming to get to a definition at the federal level (https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/07/25/2025-14089/ultra-processed-foods-request-for-information) - this remains a moving target. Unless we identify and name the problem, we can't fix it.