Is the analogy between ultra-processed foods and cigarettes an exaggeration?
In the mid-20th century, smoking was a part of modern life.
Its harms were known, but the system was large. There was advertising, industry, and habit.
Today, a similar debate is rising in another area!
Ultra-Processed Foods (UPF).
Numerous large cohort studies published in the last 10 years show that:
• As ultra-processed food consumption increases, the risk of obesity rises.
• There is a positive correlation with type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease.
• Some studies report a link with depression and gut microbiota imbalance.
• Over 50% of daily energy in some countries comes from UPFs.
The critical point here is that the problem is not just sugar or fat, but that the food has been structurally re-engineered.
Ultra-processed products are:
• Stripped of fiber
• Rapidly digested
• Highly refined
• Hyper-stimulated in terms of taste, texture, and aroma
• Have combinations that trigger the brain's reward mechanism
So, the issue is not a single additive, but the science of formulation. I hear some public health experts are now loudly asking this question: Should UPFs be subject to a regulatory framework like tobacco products?
In my opinion, this is a very tough question. But it has already started to be asked.
Let's be realistic. Can ultra-processed foods be completely eliminated? No. In modern urban life, shelf life, accessibility, and price balance are real.
But these questions are now inevitable:
• Is reformulation possible?
• Can nutrient density be increased?
• Should the labeling system be redesigned?
• Should marketing to children be restricted?
The mistake in the smoking crisis, according to research, was this: The system was slow while science was speaking. In the UPF debate, science is speaking earlier.
This question comes to my mind: Will we act faster this time?
Because it's not just about individual willpower. It's about the balance between engineered food and human biology.
