Industry urges nutrition focus to curb ultra-processed foods’ mortality risk, scientists push tobacco tactics

Scientists are calling out health-harming corporate tactics amid the global rise in chronic disease. They mainly target the manufacturing and marketing of ultra-processed foods (UPFs) linked to cancer, diabetes, neurocognitive disorders, and infertility. 

The literature review in the New England Journal of Medicine specifies five commercial products linked to 31% of annual deaths. UPFs contribute to 2.3 million deaths annually, trailing fossil fuels, tobacco, toxic chemicals, and alcohol. The review’s lead author calls for countering health harms by taking lessons from research on the tobacco industry.

Rocco Renaldi, secretary-general at the International Food and Beverage Alliance (IFBA), tells Nutrition Insight that comparing UPFs with tobacco is “misleading and unhelpful.”

“Many foods labeled ‘ultra-processed’ play an important role in nutrition, safety, and affordability. This is fundamentally different from products such as tobacco, which are inherently harmful and have no safe level of use.”

“Equating food with tobacco oversimplifies the science and the food system. It risks polarizing the debate and detracting from more constructive, evidence-based approaches to improving diets.”

He adds that public health challenges linked to nutrition are inherently complex and are influenced by factors such as overall diet, lifestyle, and socioeconomic conditions. “Addressing them requires thoughtful, science-based solutions rather than comparisons that do not reflect the realities of food and nutrition.”

Lead author Dr. Nicholas Chartres, a researcher from the University of Sydney’s Faculty of Medicine and Health in Australia, tells Nutrition Insight that the tobacco analogy refers to taxes and marketing limits and restricting industry influence on research and policy.

 His paper advocates for independent research funding and removing corporate influence from policymaking, “since industry involvement tends to skew data.” 

For more practical interventions, the paper also recommends advertising bans, especially to protect children, and strong warning labels specifying the health risk.

“People can keep their freedom of choice, but if evidence shows these products are harmful and intentionally formulated to encourage overconsumption, they should carry warning labels, even plain packaging — similar to tobacco,” Chartres explains. “Collectively, these strategies should be applied because there’s sufficient evidence of harm and of shared origins with tobacco industry practices.”

Scientists spotlight UPFs as a key driver of global chronic disease, mirroring tobacco’s harm.Chartres explains that in his paper, UPFs refer to the Nova definition — category 4 foods — which has been used across observational research and systematic reviews linking these foods to disease outcomes and mortality.

Although this classification system is widely used, researchers and nutritionists have criticized it for being too broad or vague. Renaldi previously told us that not all category 4 foods according to this definition have the same poor nutritional value. 

Tobacco and UPF link

The paper finds that since the 1980s, several corporations have transferred their technical and marketing knowledge from selling cigarettes to selling and marketing UPFs. 

Chartres argues that these foods were made to be more appealing to children, especially by altering ratios of fat, sodium, and carbohydrates to increase “hyperpalatability,” encouraging overconsumption.

These strategies were used to shape public perception of those products, influence regulation, and shape what the public knows about them, explains Chartres. “Other food companies copied these strategies, leading to a proliferation of hyperpalatable foods over the following decades.”

“So it’s not just the products themselves — it’s the corporate strategies that enable increased sales and delayed regulation. It’s the combination that drives consumption and exposure. That’s why it’s important to understand that reducing harm isn’t only about the products; it’s also about addressing the strategies corporations use.”

Regulating UPFs for public health

Speaking on behalf of the food industry, Renaldi argues that policymakers should focus on evidence-based approaches that prioritize nutritional quality rather than processing level. “Nutrient profiling systems, which assess foods based on their nutritional content, are more closely aligned with healthy dietary patterns.”

“Policy should also consider broader factors such as portion size, dietary patterns, food safety, and accessibility. It is important to ensure people have access to safe, affordable, and nutritious foods.”

He underscores that the “ultra-processed” label is often used as a “catch-all,” grouping foods that differ nutritionally. Moreover, he points out that there is no globally accepted, science-based definition of UPFs, with current classifications focusing on processing over nutritional composition, adding to consumer confusion and poor food choices.

“This shift in focus can also distract from more actionable guidance, such as reducing excess salt, sugar, and fat, which are well-established drivers of poor health outcomes.”

Renaldi believes that labels based only on processing risk can miss these factors and may lead to unintended consequences, including reduced access to fortified or shelf-stable foods that support nutrition.

Meanwhile, Chartres highlights the importance of removing industry involvement in regulating UPFs. For instance, regulatory approaches were created once public health researchers understood that tobacco industry strategies were deliberate. He adds that there is evidence showing some UPF food companies use similar strategies, which is why the paper calls for a parallel application of public health tools to reduce consumption.

Dr. Nicholas Chartres explains hyperpalatability tactics transferred from cigarettes to modern snacks (Image credit Fiona Wolf, University of Sydney).“We refer to frameworks like the WHO’s Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, which was one of the most consequential public health treaties ever developed. It recognized that the tobacco industry should not be involved in developing regulations about its own products. Removing industry influence from the policymaking process is crucial.”

“We also saw huge declines in tobacco use in high-income countries when places like the US and Australia implemented measures such as clean air policies, taxation, marketing restrictions, plain packaging, and health warning labels,” he notes. “Since UPFs cause similar harm and companies use similar tactics, we believe a comparable suite of strategies should now be applied to regulate these foods.”

Keeping nutrition science independent

Chartres elaborates on the ways in which some major multinational corporations have influenced food research. He flags that many have funded nutrition research to make their products appear less harmful through trade organizations.

“For example, Coca-Cola funded studies emphasizing physical activity instead of the health effects of sugar — an intentional distraction from the causes of obesity and metabolic illness.”

“They also funded academic institutions, scientific conferences, and professional bodies such as dietetic associations in the US and Australia. These actions helped shape scientific communication, public perception, and policy decisions around their products,” notes Chartres. “Together, these tactics strongly influenced how governments and the public viewed UPFs.”

Nutrition guidelines and responsibility

Discussing the 2025–2030 US dietary guidelines, which call for limiting highly processed foods, Chartres points out that these did not use the term “ultra-processed” from the Nova classification system.

“What’s important is that these guidelines still frame diet as a matter of personal responsibility and largely ignore industry influence. That framing was convenient for the food industry, which knows that education alone doesn’t change consumer behavior.”

“Although there’s bipartisan support for regulating highly processed foods, the US has yet to take concrete action aligned with the Nova framework — such as taxes or marketing restrictions. So far, there’s been lots of discussion, but nothing substantial on regulation.”

Fair transition pathway

When asked about proportionate public health responses that avoid unfairly targeting affordable, essential food, Chartres believes that there is a crucial distinction between UPFs and minimally processed ones. 

Rocco Renaldi says industry counters UPF harms with reformulation efforts, emphasizing nutrition over broad processing bans.“Some processed foods are necessary — for example, specialized products for infants or people with specific needs. However, excessively reformulated foods with high levels of additives are different.”

“We must avoid worsening food insecurity or health disparities,” he states.

“Regulation should go hand-in-hand with programs that improve skills for preparing minimally processed meals, support balanced caregiving roles, raise incomes, and expand access to fresh, affordable foods.” 

Chartres points out that structural changes must also accompany restrictions to prevent increasing costs without providing alternatives.

Renaldi adds: “It’s important that expectations for industry are aligned with the evidence and the realities of how food systems operate.”

“IFBA and its members are committed to working with governments, public health experts, and other stakeholders to advance real, evidence-based solutions — and we’re making measurable progress.”

He details that progress includes meeting the WHO’s trans-fat elimination standard ahead of schedule, working toward global sodium-reduction targets, and investing in product reformulation, transparent nutrition labeling, and responsible marketing.

“The focus should be on continuous improvement — reducing nutrients of concern such as salt, sugar, and saturated fat, while enhancing nutritional quality — rather than eliminating broad categories of food based on how they are processed,” continues Renaldi.

“Any transition should also consider real-world factors such as affordability, food security, and consumer needs. Effective progress on public health will come from collaborative, evidence-based approaches that improve diets without limiting access to safe, affordable, and nutritious foods.”

New opportunities for improvement

According to Chartres, there is an opportunity to develop healthier alternatives. For instance, governments could offer subsidies to companies producing minimally processed foods to help shift the food system structurally. “Otherwise, restricting UPFs alone could raise prices and deepen inequities.”

“This combined approach — informing consumers about harm while ensuring access to healthier foods — helps counter the argument that UPFs are ‘essential.’ The real issue is that food systems have been shaped to depend on them.” 

In the US, the EU, and Australia, 60–70% of supermarket products are ultra-processed, Chartres points out, which limits access to healthier choices. He calls for structural changes and targeted subsidies.

“If industry sees our tobacco comparison and rejects it, we’d respond by emphasizing evidence: these products were intentionally developed to be hyperpalatable and targeted at vulnerable groups such as children and low-income communities.” 

“The health risks are now clear, so corporations should shift toward making minimally processed foods. They can still be profitable — just with greater priority on public health rather than shareholder gain,” he concludes.