Disclaimer: This article is based on actual news from the real world – honestly! However, it has been sprinkled with a healthy dose of satire.
ANN ARBOR, Mich. — A new study from researchers at the University of Michigan, Harvard, and Duke has concluded that ultra-processed foods aren’t simply unhealthy choices but deliberately engineered products designed to maximize consumption using strategies pioneered by tobacco companies. The finding surprised exactly no one who has ever “just had a few” Doritos and woken up cradling an empty bag like a shameful memory. The study even mentions that most ultra-processed foods were actually owned by tobacco companies in the mid 1980s, which was coincidentally (or not) right around when everyone started getting fat.
Thanks for the heads-up, Cowardly Lion! (Frito-Lay)
The research, published in The Milbank Quarterly, draws on addiction science, nutrition research, and tobacco regulation history to argue that certain snacks, energy drinks, and fast foods are formulated specifically to hijack the brain’s reward systems. Study lead author Ashley Gearhardt, professor of clinical psychology at UM, said the takeaway isn’t that eating is the same as smoking, it’s that some products are designed to make moderation structurally impossible. This distinction matters mainly to lawyers.
For decades, public health messaging has emphasized personal responsibility: make better choices, exercise willpower, put down the fork. The study suggests this approach is roughly as effective as telling someone to simply choose not to be on fire. The products in question are engineered to short-circuit the decision-making process before it begins.
According to the researchers, both ultra-processed foods and tobacco products share disturbing similarities: deliberate formulation to amplify brain reward, encouragement of habitual use, and strategic public relations designed to protect profits while consumers are left to debate whether they’re weak or just hungry. The Venn diagram between “food science” and “addiction engineering” is, apparently, a circle with a corporate logo.
Gearhardt noted that young adults face particular vulnerability, having grown up in food environments packed with cheap, hyperpalatable, and always-available options engineered by people who understood neuroscience better than most doctors. The 24/7 delivery app ecosystem has essentially created a direct pipeline from dopamine research to front doors, eliminating the last natural barrier to consumption: having to put on pants.
The researchers hope the findings shift the conversation from individual blame toward corporate accountability. Whether food policy follows the same trajectory remains unclear, though the fact that we’re still having this conversation at all suggests snack companies are winning.
“It’s about understanding how products are engineered, and who benefits when ‘just one more bite’ turns into a habit,” Gearhardt said. The answer to the second part, historically, has involved shareholders and not the person currently googling “why can’t I stop eating these.”
The study offered no specific policy recommendations, which is standard for academic research that would prefer not to be sued into oblivion by multinational corporations. It did note, quietly, that the phrase “bet you can’t eat just one” has never technically been false advertising. The warning was in the slogan the whole time. And nobody reads terms and conditions.
This story is based on fully factual news, but if we got it wrong, blame these guys, we’re just here to make it funny.
