Exploring the scientific controversy around ultra-processed foods and their impact on our brains and behaviors
We've all experienced it—that irresistible craving for potato chips that makes the whole bag disappear, or the magnetic pull of the ice cream tub after a stressful day. But when does everyday indulgence cross the line into something more concerning? The concept of "food addiction" has sparked one of the most heated debates in nutritional science, pitting compelling personal experiences against rigorous scientific scrutiny. At the heart of this controversy lies a critical question: can we truly become addicted to certain foods in the same way people become addicted to drugs or alcohol?
Did you know? This article explores how scientists have taken this very question directly to the public, turning abstract research into interactive discussions at events like the British Science Festival 5 9 .
We'll unravel what neuroscience reveals about our relationship with ultra-processed foods, examine a landmark study on generational eating patterns, and discover why having these conversations matters far beyond laboratory walls.
The food addiction hypothesis suggests that certain foods—particularly those high in refined carbohydrates, fats, and sugars—can trigger neurological responses similar to those observed in substance use disorders 2 7 .
When we consume these "hyperpalatable" foods, our brain's reward centers light up with activity, releasing neurotransmitters like dopamine that create feelings of pleasure and reinforcement.
This neurological similarity forms the foundation of the food addiction argument. Systematic reviews have identified evidence supporting several addiction characteristics in relation to food, including brain reward dysfunction and impaired control over consumption 2 .
The most widely used tool for identifying food addiction is the Yale Food Addiction Scale (YFAS), which adapts diagnostic criteria from substance use disorders to eating behaviors 2 7 .
To meet the criteria for food addiction, individuals must experience at least two of these symptoms alongside significant impairment or distress 2 .
Despite compelling anecdotes and some neurological parallels, many scientists urge caution in embracing the food addiction model 7 8 . Critics highlight several theoretical difficulties:
Unlike drugs, food is necessary for survival and consumed by everyone, making it difficult to distinguish normal from pathological patterns.
While specific nutrients like sugar or fat are often implicated, researchers haven't consistently identified a particular concentration or combination that reliably triggers addiction 7 .
A compelling 2025 study published in the journal Addiction provides crucial insights into how our food environment shapes eating behaviors across generations 3 . Conducted by researchers at the University of Michigan, this investigation examined nationally representative data from more than 2,000 older Americans through the National Poll on Healthy Aging.
The research team hypothesized that individuals who grew up during the rapid expansion of ultra-processed foods in the 1980s might show different patterns of food addiction compared to those who encountered these foods later in life.
The study employed the modified Yale Food Addiction Scale 2.0 (mYFAS 2.0), a standardized tool that applies clinical addiction criteria to ultra-processed foods 3 . Participants answered questions about 13 specific experiences with these foods, including:
Publication: Addiction (2025)
Sample Size: 2,000+ older Americans
Data Source: National Poll on Healthy Aging
Key Tool: mYFAS 2.0
Focus: Generational differences in ultra-processed food addiction
The findings revealed striking generational and demographic patterns in ultra-processed food addiction 3 :
Source: University of Michigan Study (2025) 3
Source: University of Michigan Study (2025) 3
Key Insight: The dramatically higher rates among Generation X and late Baby Boom women suggest this group may have been uniquely vulnerable to changing food environments. Researchers proposed that "aggressive marketing of 'diet' ultra-processed food to women in the 1980s" may have played a critical role in establishing these patterns 3 .
Perhaps most notably, the research highlighted that individuals who perceive themselves as overweight may be particularly vulnerable to so-called "health-washed" ultra-processed foods—products marketed as low-fat, low-calorie, high-protein or high-fiber, but still formulated to maximize craving and consumption 3 .
Understanding how researchers investigate food addiction reveals the complexity of measuring human eating behaviors and brain responses. The field relies on several specialized tools and methodologies:
Standardized assessment based on substance use disorder criteria
Identifies addiction-like eating patterns through structured interviews or questionnaires
Measures brain activity by detecting blood flow changes
Maps neural responses to food images or actual consumption
Collects real-time data in natural environments
Tracks cravings and eating behaviors as they occur throughout daily life
Isolates specific food components
Determines whether particular nutrients trigger addiction-like responses
These tools have enabled researchers to move beyond simple self-reports to more objective measures of how our brains and behaviors respond to different food environments. The combination of psychological assessments, neurobiological measures, and real-world monitoring provides a multidimensional picture of what drives compulsive eating patterns.
The British Science Festival has served as a pioneering platform for transforming the abstract debate around food addiction into accessible public dialogue 5 9 . At one notable festival, organizers hosted an event titled "Food Addiction: Fact or Fiction?" that featured an international panel of psychiatrists and scientists, including experts from the University of Aberdeen's Rowett Institute of Nutrition and Health 5 .
This approach—framing the topic as an open question rather than presenting settled science—encouraged audience members to engage actively with the controversy. Rather than a traditional lecture format, the event created space for dialogue between experts and the public, allowing for exploration of both scientific evidence and personal experiences.
Events like these represent a crucial form of interactive public engagement that benefits both scientists and citizens 6 9 .
For researchers, public discussions provide valuable insights into societal concerns and misconceptions about their work. For the public, engaging directly with scientists demystifies the research process and provides transparent access to emerging evidence.
Successful public engagement around controversial topics like food addiction often employs several key strategies:
Replacing technical terms like "hedonic eating" with more accessible descriptions like "eating for pleasure rather than hunger" 4 .
Acknowledging legitimate scientific disagreements rather than presenting a false consensus.
Incorporating audience questions, live polls, and hands-on demonstrations to transform passive listening into active participation.
These approaches help bridge the gap between scientific complexity and public understanding, particularly for concepts that directly impact people's daily lives and health choices.
The scientific conversation about food addiction continues to evolve, with new evidence constantly refining our understanding of how certain foods affect our brains and behaviors. What remains clear is that the dialogue between scientists and the public—exemplified by events like the British Science Festival—plays a vital role in ensuring research remains connected to real-world experiences and concerns.
Future Research Questions:
While scientists continue to debate whether food addiction constitutes a formal diagnosis, the practical reality is that many people struggle with compulsive eating patterns that diminish their quality of life and health. Perhaps the most valuable outcome of these public engagements is the recognition that whether we call it "addiction" or something else, helping people develop healthier relationships with food remains an urgent priority—one that requires continued conversation between laboratories and living rooms alike.
In the case of food addiction, this collaborative approach may ultimately yield the most nourishing solutions of all.