Eating chips, cookies can raise addiction risk akin to substance-use disorders: Study
Researchers argued that failure to recognise this in diagnostic systems is a dangerous oversight with grave consequences for global public health.
"People aren't becoming addicted to apples or brown rice," said lead author Ashley Gearhardt, Professor of psychology at the University of Michigan, US.
"They're struggling with industrial products specifically engineered to hit the brain like a drug -- rapidly, intensely and repeatedly," Gearhardt added.
The paper, published in the journal Nature Medicine, synthesised evidence from nearly 300 studies across 36 countries. Their findings demonstrated that ultra-processed foods can hijack the brain's reward system, triggering cravings, loss of control, and persistent use despite harmful consequences -- key features of addiction.
Further, neuroimaging studies reveal that individuals with compulsive intake of these foods show brain circuit disruptions strikingly similar to those seen in alcohol and cocaine addiction.
Notably, medications that reduce cravings for ultra-processed foods have also been found to reduce compulsive drug use, underscoring the shared neurobiological mechanisms.
Importantly, Gearhardt and team highlighted that while conditions like nitrous oxide and caffeine use disorder have been included in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders,
despite abundant and growing support, ultra-processed food addiction has yet to receive even preliminary recognition as a condition worthy of further study. The manual classifies mental disorders based on limited evidence.
"The bar for recognising addiction has been far lower in other cases," said co-author Erica LaFata, assistant research professor at Drexel University's Center for Weight, Eating, and Lifestyle Science. "It's time ultra-processed food addiction was held to the same scientific standard."
The study calls on public health leaders, clinicians, and policymakers to take immediate steps to formally recognise ultra-processed food addiction, fund research, and develop clinical tools for identification and treatment. They also urged the enactment of protective measures similar to those used in tobacco control -- including restrictions on marketing to children, clearer labeling, and public education.
"We're not saying all food is addictive," Gearhardt said. "We're saying that many ultra-processed foods are designed to be addictive. And unless we recognise that, we'll continue to fail the people most affected -- especially kids."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
8 hours ago
- The Hindu
New light on a powerhouse
My mother was very possessive and finicky about her kitchen; she always left it sparkling clean and locked it at night before going to bed, perhaps to prevent unauthorised access to leftover ice-cream in the refrigerator. A year after my marriage, she handed over the kitchen keys to my wife. 'It is now for you,' she said. By then, she was convinced that my wife understood the harms of night-time coffee and took it seriously. The kitchen continues to be securely locked at night, with the access code unavailable. By the time of the handover, the tremor in mom's hands was becoming more difficult to hide, her drooling speech more obvious. In the next six months, she needed help to walk, and by the year-end, she was confined to bed and unable to recall my name. A rapidly progressive type of Parkinson's disease was eating up my mom's brain from the inside. She died on July 1, 2010, Doctor's Day. Some 1.5 billion years ago, a free-floating single unicellular anaerobic organism (a single-cell life form that lived out of fermented product, not oxygen) accidentally engulfed a passing-by aerobic (oxygen-living) bacterium. For some unusual reasons, the 'gentleman' organism did not kill or digest the bacterium, and instead, let it live and thrive inside its cytoplasm. The thankful bacterium continued to produce nutrients using oxygen and supplied it to the organism in return for a safe habitat. This endosymbiosis turned the bacterium into a modern-day 'mitochondrium'. The mitochondrium is the powerhouse (the kitchen) of the cell. It produces ATP (energy) by taking in nutrients and oxygen. It also carries its own 37-gene DNA that gives it a degree of autonomy. Interestingly, the mitochondrial DNA comes entirely from the mother. This acquisition of mitochondria is the biggest evolutionary jump in the development of complex multicellular life. New research indicates that mitochondria are not just a 'battery pack', but a cellular motherboard. Dopamine deficit Parkinson's disease is a neurodegenerative disease thought to be the result of a reduction of a neurotransmitter called dopamine in specific areas of the brain. Present-day treatment aims at increasing the amount of dopamine while treating associated disabilities. New research now points to a possible defect in the mitochondria. The brain claims only 2% of our body weight but uses 20% of our total energy expenditure. This is the reason the energy-hungry brain neurons carry over 2 million mitochondria per cell (compared with hundreds in a liver cell, and thousands in a hard-working muscle cell). In an article and an interview published in Scientific American in May, researcher Martin Picard from Columbia University suggested that a defect in mitochondria might be a key driver of Parkinson's disease. Already, researchers have identified abnormal mitochondrial function in PINK1 and PRKN, two types of genetic Parkinson's disease. The disease has no known treatment. A recent update from the University of Michigan indicates that regular exercise, a diet rich in fruits and vegetables, and reduction of mental stress can contribute to its prevention. Early treatment of hypertension, diabetes and lipids helps. Interestingly, caffeinated drinks (coffee) seem to be beneficial too. The cellular kitchen (aka mitochondria) turns out to be so much more than a powerhouse; it is an HQ where ideas evolve, and plans are drawn and strategies laid out. The mitochondrial gene passed from mother to childen ensures that the coffee-addict father or the ice-cream crazy child has to obey the rules, both at home and in biology. The mitochondria seem to have a profound effect on cellular function and survival. Mitochondria-directed therapy might be the key to hitherto non-curable neurodegenerative and cardiovascular diseases. But our present kitchen admin is yet to be convinced about the protective effects of coffee. Our kitchen continues to be locked at night. tinynair@
Time of India
3 days ago
- Time of India
How conspiracy theories about COVID's origins are hampering our ability to prevent the next pandemic
Sydney : In late June, the Scientific Advisory Group for the Origins of Novel Pathogens (SAGO), a group of independent experts convened by the World Health Organization (WHO), published an assessment of the origins of COVID . The report concluded that although we don't know conclusively where the virus that caused the pandemic came from: "a zoonotic origin with spillover from animals to humans is currently considered the best supported hypothesis." SAGO did not find scientific evidence to support "a deliberate manipulation of the virus in a laboratory and subsequent biosafety breach". This follows a series of reports and research papers since the early days of the pandemic that have reached similar conclusions: COVID most likely emerged from an infected animal at the Huanan market in Wuhan , and was not the result of a lab leak. But conspiracy theories about COVID's origins persist. And this is hampering our ability to prevent the next pandemic. Attacks on our research As experts in the emergence of viruses, we published a peer-reviewed paper in Nature Medicine in 2020 on the origins of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID. Like SAGO, we evaluated several hypotheses for how a novel coronavirus could have emerged in Wuhan in late 2019. We concluded the virus very likely emerged through a natural spillover from animals - a "zoonosis" - caused by the unregulated wildlife trade in China . Since then, our paper has become a focal point of conspiracy theories and political attacks. The idea SARS-CoV-2 might have originated in a laboratory is not, in itself, a conspiracy theory. Like many scientists, we considered that possibility seriously. And we still do, although evidence hasn't emerged to support it. But the public discourse around the origin of the pandemic has increasingly been shaped by political agendas and conspiratorial narratives. Some of this has targeted our work and vilified experts who have studied this question in a data-driven manner. A common conspiracy theory claims senior officials pressured us to promote the "preferred" hypothesis of a natural origin, while silencing the possibility of a lab leak. Some conspiracy theories even propose we were rewarded with grant funding in exchange. These narratives are false. They ignore, dismiss or misrepresent the extensive body of evidence on the origin of the pandemic. Instead, they rely on selective quoting from private discussions and a distorted portrayal of the scientific process and the motivations of scientists. So what does the evidence tell us? In the five years since our Nature Medicine paper, a substantial body of new evidence has emerged that has deepened our understanding of how SARS-CoV-2 most likely emerged through a natural spillover. In early 2020, the case for a zoonotic origin was already compelling. Much-discussed features of the virus are found in related coronaviruses and carry signatures of natural evolution. The genome of SARS-CoV-2 showed no signs of laboratory manipulation. The multi-billion-dollar wildlife trade and fur farming industry in China regularly moves high-risk animals, frequently infected with viruses, into dense urban centres. It's believed that SARS-CoV-1, the virus responsible for the SARS outbreak, emerged this way in 2002 in China's Guangdong province. Similarly, detailed analyses of epidemiological data show the earliest known COVID cases clustered around the Huanan live-animal market in Wuhan, in the Hubei province, in December 2019. Multiple independent data sources, including early hospitalisations, excess pneumonia deaths, antibody studies and infections among health-care workers indicate COVID first spread in the district where the market is located. In a 2022 study we and other experts showed that environmental samples positive for SARS-CoV-2 clustered in the section of the market where wildlife was sold. In a 2024 follow-up study we demonstrated those same samples contained genetic material from susceptible animals - including raccoon dogs and civets - on cages, carts, and other surfaces used to hold and transport them. This doesn't prove infected animals were the source. But it's precisely what we would expect if the market was where the virus first spilled over. And it's contrary to what would be expected from a lab leak. These and all other independent lines of evidence point to the Huanan market as the early epicentre of the COVID pandemic. Hindering preparedness for the next pandemic Speculation and conspiracy theories around the origin of COVID have undermined trust in science. The false balance between lab leak and zoonotic origin theories assigned by some commentators has added fuel to the conspiracy fire. This anti-science agenda, stemming in part from COVID origin conspiracy theories, is being used to help justify deep cuts to funding for biomedical research, public health and global aid. These areas are essential for pandemic preparedness. In the United States this has meant major cuts to the US Centers for Disease Control and the National Institutes of Health , the closure of the US Agency for International Development , and withdrawal from the WHO. Undermining trust in science and public health institutions also hinders the development and uptake of life-saving vaccines and other medical interventions. This leaves us more vulnerable to future pandemics. The amplification of conspiracy theories about the origin of COVID has promoted a dangerously flawed understanding of pandemic risk. The idea that a researcher discovered or engineered a pandemic virus, accidentally infected themselves, and unknowingly sparked a global outbreak (in exactly the type of setting where natural spillovers are known to occur) defies logic. It also detracts from the significant risk posed by the wildlife trade. In contrast, the evidence-based conclusion that the COVID pandemic most likely began with a virus jumping from animals to humans highlights the very real risk we increasingly face. This is how pandemics start, and it will happen again. But we're dismantling our ability to stop it or prepare for it. (The Conversation)
NDTV
3 days ago
- NDTV
How Covid Origin Theories Are Hampering Our Ability To Prevent Next Pandemic
Sydney: In late June, the Scientific Advisory Group for the Origins of Novel Pathogens (SAGO), a group of independent experts convened by the World Health Organization (WHO), published an assessment of the origins of COVID. The report concluded that although we don't know conclusively where the virus that caused the pandemic came from: a zoonotic origin with spillover from animals to humans is currently considered the best supported hypothesis. SAGO did not find scientific evidence to support "a deliberate manipulation of the virus in a laboratory and subsequent biosafety breach". This follows a series of reports and research papers since the early days of the pandemic that have reached similar conclusions: COVID most likely emerged from an infected animal at the Huanan market in Wuhan, and was not the result of a lab leak. But conspiracy theories about COVID's origins persist. And this is hampering our ability to prevent the next pandemic. Attacks on our research As experts in the emergence of viruses, we published a peer-reviewed paper in Nature Medicine in 2020 on the origins of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID. Like SAGO, we evaluated several hypotheses for how a novel coronavirus could have emerged in Wuhan in late 2019. We concluded the virus very likely emerged through a natural spillover from animals - a "zoonosis" - caused by the unregulated wildlife trade in China. Since then, our paper has become a focal point of conspiracy theories and political attacks. The idea SARS-CoV-2 might have originated in a laboratory is not, in itself, a conspiracy theory. Like many scientists, we considered that possibility seriously. And we still do, although evidence hasn't emerged to support it. But the public discourse around the origin of the pandemic has increasingly been shaped by political agendas and conspiratorial narratives. Some of this has targeted our work and vilified experts who have studied this question in a data-driven manner. A common conspiracy theory claims senior officials pressured us to promote the " preferred" hypothesis of a natural origin, while silencing the possibility of a lab leak. Some conspiracy theories even propose we were rewarded with grant funding in exchange. These narratives are false. They ignore, dismiss or misrepresent the extensive body of evidence on the origin of the pandemic. Instead, they rely on selective quoting from private discussions and a distorted portrayal of the scientific process and the motivations of scientists. So what does the evidence tell us? In the five years since our Nature Medicine paper, a substantial body of new evidence has emerged that has deepened our understanding of how SARS-CoV-2 most likely emerged through a natural spillover. In early 2020, the case for a zoonotic origin was already compelling. Much-discussed features of the virus are found in related coronaviruses and carry signatures of natural evolution. The genome of SARS-CoV-2 showed no signs of laboratory manipulation. The multi-billion-dollar wildlife trade and fur farming industry in China regularly moves high-risk animals, frequently infected with viruses, into dense urban centres. It's believed that SARS-CoV-1, the virus responsible for the SARS outbreak, emerged this way in 2002 in China's Guangdong province. Similarly, detailed analyses of epidemiological data show the earliest known COVID cases clustered around the Huanan live-animal market in Wuhan, in the Hubei province, in December 2019. Multiple independent data sources, including early hospitalisations, excess pneumonia deaths, antibody studies and infections among health-care workers indicate COVID first spread in the district where the market is located. In a 2022 study we and other experts showed that environmental samples positive for SARS-CoV-2 clustered in the section of the market where wildlife was sold. In a 2024 follow-up study we demonstrated those same samples contained genetic material from susceptible animals - including raccoon dogs and civets - on cages, carts, and other surfaces used to hold and transport them. This doesn't prove infected animals were the source. But it's precisely what we would expect if the market was where the virus first spilled over. And it's contrary to what would be expected from a lab leak. These and all other independent lines of evidence point to the Huanan market as the early epicentre of the COVID pandemic. Hindering preparedness for the next pandemic Speculation and conspiracy theories around the origin of COVID have undermined trust in science. The false balance between lab leak and zoonotic origin theories assigned by some commentators has added fuel to the conspiracy fire. This anti-science agenda, stemming in part from COVID origin conspiracy theories, is being used to help justify deep cuts to funding for biomedical research, public health and global aid. These areas are essential for pandemic preparedness. In the United States this has meant major cuts to the US Centers for Disease Control and the National Institutes of Health, the closure of the US Agency for International Development, and withdrawal from the WHO. Undermining trust in science and public health institutions also hinders the development and uptake of life-saving vaccines and other medical interventions. This leaves us more vulnerable to future pandemics. The amplification of conspiracy theories about the origin of COVID has promoted a dangerously flawed understanding of pandemic risk. The idea that a researcher discovered or engineered a pandemic virus, accidentally infected themselves, and unknowingly sparked a global outbreak (in exactly the type of setting where natural spillovers are known to occur) defies logic. It also detracts from the significant risk posed by the wildlife trade. In contrast, the evidence-based conclusion that the COVID pandemic most likely began with a virus jumping from animals to humans highlights the very real risk we increasingly face. This is how pandemics start, and it will happen again. But we're dismantling our ability to stop it or prepare for it. (Author: , NHMRC Leadership Fellow and Professor of Virology, University of Sydney; Andrew Rambaut, Professor of Molecular Evolution, University of Edinburgh; Kristian Andersen, Professor; Director of Infectious Disease Genomics, The Scripps Research Institute, and Robert Garry, Professor, Department of Microbiology and Immunology, Tulane University) (Disclaimer Statement: Edward C Holmes receives funding from the Australian Research Council and the National Health and Medical Research Council (Australia). He has received consultancy fees from Pfizer Australia and Moderna, and has previously held honorary appointments (for which he has received no renumeration and performed no duties) at the China CDC in Beijing and the Shanghai Public Health Clinical Center (Fudan University). Andrew Rambaut receives funding from The Wellcome Trust and the Gates Foundation. Kristian G. Andersen receives funding from the National Institutes of Health, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the Gates Foundation. He is on the Scientific Advisory Board of Invivyd, Inc. and has consulted on topics related to the COVID-19 pandemic and other infectious diseases. The views and opinions expressed in this publication are solely those of the author in their personal capacity and do not necessarily reflect the views, positions, or policies of Scripps Research, its leadership, faculty, staff, or its scientific collaborators or affiliates. Scripps Research does not endorse or take responsibility for any statements made in this piece. Robert Garry has received funding from the National Institutes of Health, the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovation, the Wellcome Trust Foundation, Gilead Sciences, and the European and Developing Countries Clinical Trials Partnership Programme. He is a co-founder of Zalgen Labs, a biotechnology company developing countermeasures for emerging viruses.) This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
