Stop thinking of these as foods. Think of them as addictive substances.
Pesquisadores das universidades de Michigan e Virginia Tech concluíram que alimentos ultraprocessados — salgadinhos, refrigerantes, macarrão instantâneo — ativam os mesmos circuitos neurológicos de compulsão que a nicotina, atendendo a todos os critérios clínicos de dependência estabelecidos para o tabaco. A comparação não é metafórica: é metodológica, e seus resultados são inequívocos. No Brasil, um estudo de 2019 associou esse padrão de consumo a 57 mil mortes prematuras em um único ano, revelando que o que está na prateleira do supermercado pode ser, em essência, tão perigoso quanto o que está na embalagem de cigarro.
- Alimentos ultraprocessados atendem a todos os critérios de dependência do tabaco — as pessoas continuam consumindo mesmo sabendo dos danos e não conseguem parar quando querem.
- Em 2019, o consumo desses produtos foi associado a 57 mil mortes prematuras no Brasil, o equivalente a uma em cada dez mortes entre adultos de 30 a 69 anos.
- A indústria formula esses produtos deliberadamente com combinações precisas de açúcar, gordura e carboidratos refinados para torná-los irresistíveis — a compulsão não é fraqueza individual, é design.
- Crianças são o alvo prioritário da publicidade desses produtos, tornando-se especialmente vulneráveis antes mesmo de desenvolver plena capacidade de resistência.
- Pesquisadores propõem uma mudança de linguagem e de política: tratar ultraprocessados não como alimentos, mas como substâncias refinadas com potencial aditivo, deslocando a responsabilidade do indivíduo para a regulação sistêmica.
Pesquisadores das universidades de Michigan e Virginia Tech chegaram a uma conclusão que reposiciona o debate sobre alimentação: os produtos que consumimos de forma quase automática — salgadinhos, biscoitos industrializados, refrigerantes, macarrão instantâneo — ativam os mesmos padrões neurológicos de compulsão que o cigarro. A equipe aplicou sistematicamente os critérios clínicos usados para classificar o tabaco como substância aditiva e encontrou correspondência em todos os pontos. As pessoas consomem esses alimentos mesmo sabendo dos danos e não conseguem reduzir o consumo mesmo quando genuinamente desejam.
O que torna a análise relevante é sua precisão metodológica. Não se trata de uma analogia informal, mas da aplicação do mesmo rigor que levou décadas para consolidar o reconhecimento da dependência do tabaco. Os resultados foram inequívocos: chips, biscoitos, refrigerantes e snacks processados atendem aos critérios de uso compulsivo.
As consequências concretas desse padrão foram mapeadas no Brasil. Um estudo de 2019, conduzido pela Universidade de São Paulo em parceria com pesquisadores chilenos e publicado no American Journal of Preventive Medicine, associou o consumo de ultraprocessados a 57 mil mortes prematuras naquele ano — o equivalente a uma em cada dez mortes entre pessoas de 30 a 69 anos. Os dados vieram dos registros do sistema de saúde brasileiro, tornando o impacto impossível de ignorar.
A pesquisadora Ashley Gearhardt, professora de psicologia em Michigan, traçou o paralelo com clareza: assim como o tabaco revelou ser uma armadilha da qual as pessoas não conseguiam sair mesmo querendo, o mesmo parece ocorrer com os ultraprocessados — e a situação é agravada pelo fato de que crianças são o principal alvo da publicidade desses produtos. Alexandra DiFeliceantonio, da Virginia Tech, foi além: propôs que paremos de tratar esses produtos como alimentos e passemos a reconhecê-los como substâncias refinadas com potencial aditivo.
A distinção tem implicações práticas. Identificar um ultraprocessado é simples — quanto mais ingredientes no rótulo, maior o grau de industrialização. Mas se esses produtos funcionam no cérebro como o tabaco, tratar o consumo excessivo como mera falta de disciplina individual ignora o problema real: são produtos projetados para vencer a resistência. A educação nutricional, embora necessária, pode não ser suficiente diante de formulações deliberadamente engineered para ser irresistíveis. O que começou como uma comparação científica tornou-se um argumento por regulação.
Researchers at the University of Michigan and Virginia Tech have arrived at a conclusion that reframes how we think about the snacks in our pantries: the foods we reach for mindlessly—potato chips, instant noodles, mass-produced cookies, sugary drinks—trigger the same compulsive consumption patterns in the brain as cigarettes do. The scientists applied the established criteria for tobacco dependence to ultra-processed foods and found they met every measure. These products, they determined, activate the same neurological pathways as nicotine, leaving people unable to stop or reduce consumption even when they know the harm.
This is not a new suspicion in scientific circles. For years, researchers have debated whether food addiction could be meaningfully compared to substance dependence. What makes this latest analysis significant is its rigor: the team used the very framework that took decades of evidence to establish tobacco as addictive and applied it systematically to the modern food supply. The results were unambiguous. Chips, cookies, sodas, and processed snacks met the criteria for compulsive use—people consume them despite knowing they cause damage, and they struggle to stop even when they genuinely want to.
The stakes are not theoretical. In 2019, a research team from the University of São Paulo, working with colleagues from the University of Santiago in Chile, traced the consequences of this consumption pattern across Brazil's population. They found that ultra-processed foods were associated with 57,000 premature deaths that year. The number translates to a stark ratio: one in every ten people between the ages of 30 and 69 experienced a preventable death linked to what they ate. The study, published in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine, drew its data from Brazil's health system records, making the toll impossible to dismiss as speculation.
The mechanism behind the addiction is deliberate. Manufacturers engineer these products with precise combinations of refined carbohydrates, fat, and sugar—formulations designed to be irresistible and effortless to consume. Ashley Gearhardt, the lead researcher at Michigan and an associate professor of psychology, framed the parallel plainly: when scientists identified tobacco as addictive, they recognized that smoking was not simply an adult choice but a trap people could not escape even when they wanted to. "The same thing seems to be happening with people who consume processed foods," she said, "and this is particularly concerning because children are among the primary targets of advertising for these products."
Alexandra DiFeliceantonio, an assistant professor at Virginia Tech's Fralin Biomedical Research Institute, pushed the language further. "It's time to stop thinking of highly processed foods merely as foods," she argued, "but as highly refined substances that can be addictive." The distinction matters. If we treat ultra-processed foods as substances rather than choices, the responsibility shifts from individual willpower to systemic design and regulation.
Identifying an ultra-processed food is straightforward in principle: read the label. The more ingredients listed, the more processing has occurred. Instant noodles, frozen pizzas, canned sauces, nuggets, and sausages are common examples. They are engineered to be tasty, attractive, convenient, and nutritionally hollow. Minimally processed foods—canned fish, dried meat, preserved vegetables—undergo fewer industrial steps and retain more nutritional value, though they too often contain added salt or sugar. The difference is one of degree and intention.
The research raises an uncomfortable question about public health strategy. If ultra-processed foods operate on the brain like tobacco, then treating them as mere dietary preference misses the point. The 57,000 premature deaths in Brazil alone suggest that individual education about nutrition, while necessary, may not be sufficient. The products are designed to overcome resistance. Children, whose brains are still developing and whose advertising exposure is heaviest, face particular vulnerability. What began as a scientific comparison—processed food addiction versus cigarette dependence—has become a call to recognize that the food system itself may be engineered as a public health threat.
Citas Notables
When we recognized that tobacco products were addictive, we understood that smoking was not just an adult choice but a trap people couldn't escape. The same thing is happening with ultra-processed foods, and it's especially concerning because children are heavily targeted by advertising.— Ashley Gearhardt, associate professor of psychology, University of Michigan
We need to stop thinking of highly processed foods merely as foods and recognize them as refined substances that can be addictive.— Alexandra DiFeliceantonio, assistant professor, Virginia Tech's Fralin Biomedical Research Institute
La Conversación del Hearth Otra perspectiva de la historia
So the study is saying these foods are literally as addictive as cigarettes? That seems like a strong claim.
It's not saying they're identical in every way. It's saying they meet the same diagnostic criteria for addiction—compulsive use despite knowing the harm, inability to stop or cut back even when you want to. The brain mechanisms are similar. That's the finding.
But people need to eat. Nobody needs cigarettes. Doesn't that change things?
It does, which is why the researchers emphasize that these products are engineered to be irresistible. We need food; we don't need the specific combination of refined carbs, fat, and sugar that makes a chip or cookie compulsive. The addiction hijacks a necessary biological drive.
The 57,000 deaths in Brazil—that's a real number? One year?
Yes. 2019. One in ten people aged 30 to 69 had a preventable death linked to ultra-processed food consumption. It's drawn from actual health system data, not estimates.
Why aren't we treating this like we treated tobacco?
That's the question the researchers are raising. With tobacco, we eventually recognized it wasn't a personal failing—it was addiction. We regulated it, restricted advertising, especially to children. These foods face almost none of that scrutiny, and children are heavily targeted.
What would treating it like tobacco actually look like?
Regulation of marketing, particularly to minors. Possibly restrictions on where and how these products are sold. Labeling that reflects their addictive potential. Right now, they're just foods on a shelf. If we reclassified them as refined substances, the policy conversation changes entirely.