Introduction. In recent times, the debate surrounding ultra-processed foods (UPFs) and potential food addiction has gained momentum. While these convenient products dominate grocery store aisles, they also raise concerns about their impact on our health and behaviors. The following article delves into the science behind UPFs and explores the implications of our reliance on these foods, alongside noteworthy efforts to restore vital parts of our ecosystem, such as the American chestnut tree.
Part the First: Ultra-Processed Foods and Addiction. Big Agriculture and the food industry may be facing a significant challenge regarding their lucrative offerings. As previously discussed, UPFs are prevalent in grocery stores throughout much of the Anglophone world. An article in Scientific American adds to the ongoing conversation on whether these foods can be addictive: Can Ultraprocessed Foods Be Addictive? A Neuroscientist Weighs In.
The recent popularity of GLP-1 weight-loss medications has introduced terms such as “food noise” and “food cravings” into everyday language. But does food hold addictive properties? Neuroscientists and researchers in food behavior are investigating whether food—particularly ultraprocessed foods—can indeed be as addictive as substances like cigarettes, alcohol, and cocaine.
The question of whether UPFs meet the formal criteria for addiction, including tolerance, is secondary to their reality in today’s culinary landscape. UPFs are designed by the Great American Food System—and its global counterparts—to be not only convenient and calorie-dense but also habit-forming choices. While it can be argued that preparing fresh food from scratch is healthier and often cheaper, this reality does not apply to many living in food deserts. For those unable to easily access fresh ingredients, cooking can feel like a lost art. Such circumstances exemplify the failures of the Neoliberal order, which often prioritizes profits over essentials.
This discussion is bolstered by an interview with Alex DiFeliceantonio, a neuroscientist specializing in appetitive behavior at Virginia Tech:
When exploring food addiction, it’s crucial to frame it similarly to substance use disorders, which negatively impact life quality. Although food addiction is not yet included in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) like substance use disorders, proposals are underway for its inclusion.
We typically employ the Yale Food Addiction Scale for clinical assessment. This scale evaluates criteria aligned with those in the DSM, incorporating clinical indicators that suggest an individual may be struggling with food addiction—evident by compromised social engagement or work performance. Studies show that when employing this scale globally, around 12 percent of people report these challenges.
The interplay of several factors can lead to addictive behavior—most notably, the potential for addiction in the substance itself in conjunction with the individual’s vulnerabilities. When considering food, we analyze the ingredients with addictive properties and the types of individuals most at risk. Moreover, certain food characteristics, such as high refined carbohydrate levels, are known to activate reward pathways in the brain.
Excessive consumption of UPFs can arguably be equated to a substance use disorder (approaching substance abuse). The vulnerability of the consumer significantly influences this issue. Those most affected are often the marginalized, making up a considerable portion of the population in affluent regions. Despite claims from Big Food promoting “healthy choices,” the reality is that UPFs dominate grocery options in food deserts, catering mainly to profit rather than public health. One hundred years ago, Andrew Nelson Lytle noted, “A farm is not a place to grow rich; a farm is a place to grow corn.” This sentiment highlights the transition of corn from a vital food source to a commodity used primarily for ethanol, animal fodder, and processed sugar substitutes.
Additional criteria for substance use disorders include loss of control over consumption and habitual intake patterns. These aspects are visible in binge-eating disorders. While binge eating and food addiction aren’t synonymous, they share commonalities. When examining binge-eating reports, individuals often turn to ultraprocessed foods such as pizza, ice cream, candy, and chips, rather than healthier options like fruits or nuts.
This is where food science plays a critical role. The scientists behind UPFs aim to design products that hit our bliss points, as highlighted in Salt, Sugar, Fat. The slogan from Lay’s potato chips—“Nobody can eat just one!”—underscores the addictive quality of these snacks. Such outcomes are no coincidence:
Current scientific understanding posits that a single reward system is in place, with various factors capable of eliciting a rewarding response. All addictive substances increase dopamine levels in the striatum [a brain area involved in motor and reward processes]. This scientific consensus has held since 1988, backed by research by pharmacologists Gaetano Di Chiara and Assunta Imperato. Similar responses are seen in certain foods. For example, infusing animals with sugar and fat shows an increase in dopamine. Interestingly, this increase is also noted when substances are introduced directly into the gut.
Since their rise in popularity during the 1950s, ultraprocessed foods have tapped into a reward system originally designed for natural rewards found in nature.
When considering food addiction, researchers recognize methods for intensifying the activation of the brain’s reward system. Ultraprocessed foods exploit numerous factors, raising levels of sodium, fat, and refined carbohydrates in our systems—factors enhanced through emulsifiers, texture, and flavor modifications. These foods are designed to be exceptionally palatable and delicious. Broccoli, for instance, is not regarded as an addictive food; rather, it is those containing a high combination of potentially addictive nutrients that pose the greatest risks.
So, are UPFs genuinely addictive? The evidence certainly suggests they are. However, whether the intersection of food science and politics allows us—as engaged citizens, not mere consumers—to make healthier choices remains unexplored. California has initiated legal action against UPF companies, but this effort transcends mere legal discourse. A common rebuttal from Big Food is that we risk overpathologizing issues:
One argument I often encounter emphasizes the need to avoid overpathologizing our challenges. However, if 12 percent of any population acknowledges having an issue, further investigation seems warranted. Some claim addiction revolves around the act of eating rather than the food itself. Yet, this theory falters when considering food choices; true eating addiction would drive individuals towards foods that require more effort to consume—hard or crunchy items. Instead, we observe struggles with foods high in fat and sugar—refined carbohydrates.
Part of this discourse unfolds within the medical curricula of American medical schools, though current efforts remain insufficient. Nutrition is primarily taught as a subset of Biochemistry, neglecting the political and economic dimensions of the food landscape. Given that the issues surrounding UPFs and food politics have been ongoing since the 1950s, a shift in emphasis is overdue. The Farm Bill, originally articulated by Earl Butz with a “get big or get out” philosophy, mirrors our current challenges. However, change is possible—not as daunting as it appears. As we’ve explored here before, it’s a political issue that requires a political solution.
The Farm Bill could incentivize the cultivation of real food rather than industrial commodities like corn and soybeans, which primarily serve as inputs for UPF production. This transformation would allow farmers to reclaim their roles, benefiting all community members rather than just those with means. Again, this is a question of political will that requires political solutions. For those interested in grassroots methods, Barbara Kingsolver offers valuable insights in Animal, Vegetable, Miracle. While not everyone has the ability to grow food, supporting those who do is a crucial step forward!
Part the Second: The American Chestnut Returns. Reflecting on food, many of us may have heard this tune at least once in the past month. Early in the twentieth century, the American chestnut tree was predominant in U.S. forests. Naturalists like William Bartram marveled at the vast chestnut tree forests. Their nuts were delicious, while the timber was versatile. Unfortunately, chestnut blight devastated this resource, until now.
I have been closely following the recovery efforts, led by someone I know, but was unaware that Hikers Can Again Wander Through Mature, Wild American Chestnut Forests:
Hundreds of years ago, American chestnut trees were the giants of the Appalachian Mountain forests, towering at 100 feet and measuring eight feet in width, living for up to 600 years and covering approximately 200 million acres from Mississippi to Maine. Carpenters prized the lumber, while farmers admired its capacity to produce affordable and nutritious livestock feed. Gastronomes held their nuts in high regard.
However, around 1904, an invasive blight from East Asia arrived (a natural consequence of global trade along with the fire ant and the Formosan termite). This fungus attacked the trunks of these magnificent trees, resulting in the loss of countless specimens. While a few trees persisted, their nuts were infertile due to a lack of pollination, and by 1950, American chestnuts became effectively extinct.
“This devastation represents one of the most significant recorded changes to natural plant populations caused by an introduced organism in history,” notes William MacDonald, an emeritus professor of plant pathology at West Virginia University and former president of the American Chestnut Foundation. Had the tragedy been averted, hikers on the renowned Appalachian Trail would experience a radically different landscape and enjoy some delightful treats during their fall camping trips.
The American Chestnut Foundation has dedicated the past 75 years to collaborating with conservation agencies to crossbreed blight-resistant American chestnut trees using clippings from surviving trees and incorporating Chinese or Japanese varieties.
Large publicly accessible stands of American chestnut forests can now be found in several locations across the Virginia mountains, with smaller experimental plots in Kentucky, Tennessee, Pennsylvania, and Maine. Some of the largest and oldest forests are located within ten miles of the Blue Ridge Parkway at Lesesne and the Matthews State Forest in Galax. Other notable groves are found in Sky Meadows State Park in Delaplane and the Mountain Lake Wilderness near Blacksburg.
This story illustrates the persistence of scientists dedicated to slow but essential recovery efforts. They have successfully revitalized a once-dominant tree species. This approach to science serves as a reminder that challenges can be overcome. My next focus will be on restoring a more substantial area of the longleaf pine forest, which once blanketed much of Southeast North America during Bartram’s time. This recovery will not involve the Farm Bill’s current methods of incentivizing monoculture planting of longleaf pines, akin to industrial corn farming. A similar approach is already in place for cultivating pine trees intended for paper products, further distancing us from true forest ecosystems. To navigate the impending challenges ahead, it will be essential for us to return to sustainable land use and produce everything—animal, vegetable, and mineral—for genuine need rather than profit.
Conclusion. Ultimately, the concerns surrounding UPFs and their potential addictive nature shine a light on broader systemic issues within our food landscape. At the same time, the inspiring return of the American chestnut serves as a reminder of the resilience of our ecosystems and the dedicated efforts of those committed to restoring balance. As we move forward, it is crucial to advocate for responsible consumption and sustainable practices to ensure a healthier environment and society. Thank you for taking the time to read this piece, and may the New Year bring hope and progress.
