(Mercola)—Imagine walking down the grocery store aisle, reaching for your favorite snack or convenience meal. Now, picture the same scene, but with an unexpected twist: the masterminds behind those tempting, perfectly engineered flavors aren’t food scientists, but tobacco executives. It sounds like the plot of a far-fetched conspiracy theory, doesn’t it?

Yet, a study from the University of Kansas suggests this scene isn’t just plausible — it’s really what happened.¹ For decades, we’ve known about Big Tobacco’s insidious tactics to hook smokers. But what if those same strategies were applied to the food on your plate? The research reveals a startling connection between tobacco giants and the processed food industry that dominated American eating habits for over two decades.

From the late 1980s to the early 2000s, tobacco companies like Philip Morris and R.J. Reynolds weren’t just selling cigarettes — they were quietly shaping the very landscape of the U.S. food system. As you read on, prepare to have your perspective on processed foods forever altered. The story that unfolds is one of corporate strategy, scientific manipulation and a calculated effort to make certain foods irresistible — even addictive.

It’s a tale that challenges our understanding of the forces behind our daily food choices and raises urgent questions about the need for regulation in our modern food environment. Are you ready to uncover the tobacco-laced truth behind many of your pantry staples?

The Shocking Tobacco-Food Connection Hidden in Your Pantry

You may think Big Tobacco and Big Food are separate industries, but the University of Kansas study, published in the journal Addiction, reveals how deeply intertwined they were for decades.² The researchers found that tobacco giants Philip Morris and R.J. Reynolds strategically acquired major food companies in the 1980s, dominating the U.S. food system for over 20 years.

During this time, they deliberately formulated and promoted “hyper-palatable” processed foods designed to maximize consumption and profits — much like they did with cigarettes. The study examined food products from 1988 to 2001, when tobacco companies led the food industry.

Foods owned by tobacco companies were 29% more likely to be classified as “fat and sodium hyper-palatable” and 80% more likely to be “carbohydrate and sodium hyper-palatable” compared to foods not owned by tobacco companies.³

Recognize that the primary reason was this was so destructive to your biology was that they used the wrong fats. If they had used saturated fats, which were vilified at the time, instead of the exalted but pernicious mitochondrial poisons, PUFAs, we would be in good shape from a health perspective.

But these hyper-palatable foods were engineered with specific combinations of pernicious omega-6 fats, and additives that don’t occur in nature. They excessively activate brain reward circuits, facilitating overconsumption and leading to addictive-like eating behaviors.

How Big Tobacco Shaped Your Grocery Store Shelves

When you walk down the supermarket aisles today, you’re seeing the long-term consequences of Big Tobacco’s foray into food. The study found that as of 2018, over 75% of branded food products qualify as hyper-palatable, regardless of previous tobacco company ownership. However, foods that were once tobacco-owned still showed a slightly higher prevalence of being classified as omega-6 LA loaded fat and artificial ingredient hyper-palatable.

This suggests that tobacco companies’ strategies for formulating hyper-palatable foods have influenced the broader food industry. Other food companies likely observed the market success of tobacco-owned brands and began producing similar hyper-palatable products to remain competitive.

It’s a stark reminder of how corporate strategies in one industry have far-reaching effects on public health through unexpected channels. The tobacco companies focused particularly on increasing fat and artificial ingredient content, as well as carbohydrates and sodium. Interestingly, they seemed to avoid promoting foods high in both fat and sugar.

The researchers speculate this was to avoid scrutiny, as there was growing concern in the 1990s about sugar’s role in obesity. By focusing on sodium instead, tobacco-owned food companies could enhance palatability while staying under the radar of most nutritional advice at the time.⁴

The Timeline: Processed Foods Before Big Tobacco

It’s often claimed that the processed food industry was created by the cigarette industry in the 1990s, but the processed food industry has a complex history that reaches back to the Industrial Revolution. The origins of industrial food processing can be traced to the late 18th and early 19th centuries.⁵ Nicolas Appert’s invention of canning in 1810 marked a significant milestone, allowing foods to be preserved for long periods.⁶

The canning process is not the issue. If it is done with glass jars it works just fine to preserve food. But when actual cans are used they must have a liner, so the food does not come in contact with the metal. That liner is plastic that is loaded with endocrine-disrupting chemicals that activate your estrogen receptors which help destroy your mitochondria and kill you prematurely.

The following decades saw rapid advancements in food technology, including the development of refrigeration, pasteurization and industrial milling. By the early 20th century, companies like Kellogg’s, Nabisco and Heinz were already well-established, producing a variety of processed foods. The post-World War II era saw a boom in convenience foods, with TV dinners, instant coffee and boxed cake mixes becoming household staples.

This history demonstrates that the processed food industry was already mature and thriving long before tobacco companies began to diversify their portfolios in the 1980s and 1990s. But while tobacco companies didn’t create the processed food industry, they did make significant investments in it during the late 20th century.

Big Tobacco’s Foray Into Processed Foods

In 1985, R.J. Reynolds acquired Nabisco for $4.9 billion, creating R.J.R Nabisco.⁷ This move was part of a larger trend of tobacco companies diversifying their holdings in the face of declining cigarette sales and increasing public health concerns — a long-term strategic approach to mitigate potential risks to their core business.

Tobacco companies began diversifying as early as the 1950s, following initial scientific reports linking smoking to lung cancer.⁸ Philip Morris, another major tobacco player, purchased General Foods in 1985 for $5.6 billion⁹ and Kraft in 1988 for $12.9 billion.¹⁰ These acquisitions gave tobacco companies control over some of the largest food manufacturers in the U.S.

The tobacco industry’s interest in food companies was strategic: they saw an opportunity to leverage their marketing expertise and distribution networks in a new sector. Additionally, the stable cash flow from food products could help offset potential losses in the tobacco market. It’s worth noting that while these acquisitions were significant, they represented a shift in ownership rather than the creation of a new industry.

Big Tobacco’s Notable Impact on Food Marketing and Product Development

The tobacco industry’s involvement in the food sector did have notable impacts, particularly in the areas of marketing and product development. Tobacco companies brought with them sophisticated marketing techniques honed over decades of selling cigarettes. These included targeted advertising, brand loyalty programs and the use of psychology in product packaging and placement.

For example, Philip Morris applied its expertise in flavor enhancement, developed for cigarettes, to food products. The tobacco giant conducted research on flavor appeal, finding that participants were more excited and curious about tobacco products with characterizing flavors.¹¹ This focus on flavor appeal could have easily translated to their food products strategy, leading to the creation of more intensely flavored snacks and convenience foods.

After all, tobacco companies invested heavily in understanding how flavors “worked” and how they could enhance user experience. The tobacco industry also used the concept of “brand stretching,” where a popular brand name is used to sell a wide range of products.

Additionally, their experience in dealing with health-related regulations and public scrutiny influenced how food companies approached similar challenges. While these strategies didn’t create the processed food industry outright, they did contribute to its evolution and the ways in which processed foods are marketed and developed today.

Big Tobacco’s Sweet Tooth: How Cigarette Companies Shaped the Sugary Drinks Market

Remember those colorful, sweet drinks from your childhood — the ones with cartoon characters on the packaging and fun, fruity flavors? It turns out there’s a darker history behind these beverages than you might expect. A study published in the BMJ reveals that tobacco giants R.J. Reynolds and Philip Morris played a significant role in developing and marketing many popular children’s sugary drinks.¹²

Brands like Hawaiian Punch, Kool-Aid, Capri Sun and Tang were once owned and crafted by these tobacco conglomerates. In the 1960s, as part of their efforts to diversify beyond cigarettes, these companies acquired and developed drink brands specifically targeting children.

They applied their extensive knowledge of flavors, colors and youth-focused marketing strategies — originally designed to sell cigarettes — to create and promote sugary beverages that would appeal to young consumers.

From Tobacco to Tang: Marketing Strategies That Hook Kids

The tobacco industry’s playbook for selling sugary drinks to children was remarkably like their cigarette marketing tactics. They conducted extensive market research, testing various flavors, colors and packaging designs on children to determine what would be most appealing. Cartoon mascots like Kool-Aid’s smiling pitcher and Hawaiian Punch’s Punchy became central figures in advertising campaigns.¹³

These companies introduced child-sized packaging, such as R.J. Reynolds’ 8-ounce cans of Hawaiian Punch, marketed as “perfect for children” and “easy to hold, easy to open.”¹⁴ They also developed innovative product forms like fizz tablets, powders and “magic” color-changing drinks to capture children’s imagination.¹⁵

Philip Morris even repurposed its “Marlboro Country Store” loyalty program concept for Kool-Aid, creating the “Wacky Warehouse” where kids could redeem purchases for toys and enter sweepstakes.¹⁶ These integrated marketing strategies surrounded children with consistent product messages across multiple platforms — from television commercials and comic books to school supplies and theme park sponsorships.

Were R.J. Reynolds and Philip Morris Once the Two Largest Food Companies?

While these tobacco companies made major acquisitions in the food industry, they weren’t primarily food companies themselves. They were diversifying their holdings by entering the food sector. It’s worth noting, however, that these acquisitions made Philip Morris and R.J. Reynolds significant players in the food industry. As noted in the Addiction study:¹⁷

“In the early 1980s, PM [Philip Morris] bought major US food companies including Kraft and General Foods. By 1989, PM’s combined Kraft–General Foods was the largest food company in the world.

R.J.R [R.J. Reynolds] had a slower trajectory of entry to the food industry and bought into the US beverage market in the 1960s and acquiring a limited number of specialty convenience food brands (e.g. puddings and maple syrup brands) throughout the 1970s.

However, in 1985 R.J.R purchased major cookie and cracker brand Nabisco, which doubled company food profits in a single year and solidified their status as a leader in the US food industry.

Collectively, PM- and R.J.R-owned companies dominated the US food system between the late 1980s to the early 2000s; thus, companies that specialized in creating addictive tobacco products led the development of the US food system for > 20 years.”

Big Tobacco Merged with Big Food Using Cash Reserves from Cigarette Sales

Tobacco companies were able to make these large acquisitions because they were cash-rich from cigarette production and sales.¹⁸ This strategy allowed them to enter the food industry and gain control of major food brands and companies. By the 2000s, most tobacco companies had spun off or sold their food subsidiaries.

In 2007, for instance, Altria — formerly Philip Morris — spun off Kraft Foods, separating the tobacco and food businesses.¹⁹ However, Big Tobacco’s influence on product development and marketing strategies in the food industry persisted.

Many of the marketing techniques developed by tobacco companies are still in use today. Despite voluntary industry agreements not to advertise unhealthy products to children, companies continue to use cartoon characters, branded toys and child-friendly packaging to promote junk foods and beverages.

As a consumer, you should be aware of these marketing tactics and their impact on individual and public health. By understanding the history behind these ultraprocessed food products, you can make more informed choices about what you bring into your home and help protect yourself and your family from the long-term consequences of ultraprocessed food consumption.

Further, despite mounting scientific evidence on the addictive properties of hyper-palatable foods, there are currently no federal regulations addressing their accessibility. The Addiction researchers argue that the current state of the U.S. food environment is eerily like the 1950s tobacco landscape, before the government stepped in to regulate cigarettes.²⁰

Nearly all grocery store shelves are saturated with products engineered to override your body’s natural satiety signals and keep you coming back for more. Just as with tobacco, public health is at risk due to corporate strategies designed to prioritize profits over wellbeing.

Big Tobacco’s ties to the processed food industry serve as a wake-up call about the interconnected nature of commercial influences on health. It demonstrates how one industry’s tactics have profound and lasting impacts in seemingly unrelated areas. As you navigate the modern food environment, being aware of these historical connections will help you make more informed choices and advocate for a healthier food system.

• ^{1, 2, 3, 4, 17, 20} Addiction. 2024 Jan;119(1):62-71. doi: 10.1111/add.16332. Epub 2023 Sep 8
• ⁵ Foods. 2020 Aug; 9(8): 1056
• ⁶ Britannica, Nicolas Appert
• ⁷ The New York Times June 3, 1985
• ⁸ The University of Alabama, Diversification
• ⁹ The Washington Post September 27, 1985
• ¹⁰ Encyclopedia.com Kraft Foods Inc.
• ¹¹ Neuropharmacology. 2020 Oct 15; 177: 108162
• ^{12, 13, 14, 15, 16} BMJ 2019;364:l736
• ¹⁸ American Business History Center, Forgotten Giant: General Foods October 23, 2020
• ¹⁹ Altria, About Altria, Our Heritage

(Mercola)—A 2024 systematic review¹ of the literature confirmed what multiple studies have shown — the higher your intake of ultraprocessed food, the higher your risk of adverse health outcomes. To fully appreciate what the study says and your risk, it’s important to know exactly what ultraprocessed foods are.

There are often misunderstandings about which foods fall into processed and ultraprocessed categories. For example, when green beans are canned, they become processed food, but they are still a far cry from a bag of potato chips or a box of donuts — examples of ultraprocessed foods.

NOVA Classification

Several systems are used to classify food according to the level of processing. The NOVA classification is the most common, though there is some debate² over the accuracy of how foods are classified by evaluators, even when information on the ingredients is available. The European Journal of Clinical Nutrition reports NOVA food categories this way:³

• NOVA1 — “Unprocessed or minimally processed foods,” primarily the edible parts of plants or animals that have been taken straight from nature or that have been minimally modified/preserved.
• NOVA2 — “Culinary ingredients,” such as salt, oil, sugar or starch, which are produced from NOVA1 foods.
• NOVA3 — “Processed foods,” such as freshly baked breads, canned vegetables or cured meats, obtained by combining NOVA1 and NOVA2 foods.
• NOVA4 — “Ultraprocessed foods,” such as ready-to-eat industrially formulated products “made mostly or entirely from substances derived from foods and additives, with little if any intact Group 1 food.”

From these categories, it’s evident that NOVA1 and NOVA2 foods are those that you buy from the produce aisle or raw meat section, bring home and cook in your kitchen. NOVA3 and NOVA4 are typically foodstuffs purchased in the center aisles at the grocery store or a convenience store.

These consumables typically have a long shelf life, don’t need refrigeration, cannot be reproduced at home and have more than five ingredients, some of which you may not be able to pronounce.

Ultraprocessed Foods Linked to Dozens of Health Problems

The 2024 analysis,⁴ which included 45 unique pooled analyses and 9,888,373 participants, found direct associations between 32 health parameters and exposure to ultraprocessed food. These health outcomes included metabolic, cancer, mental, respiratory, cardiovascular, gastrointestinal and all-cause mortality.

There was a direct association between the higher number of ultraprocessed foods and a higher incidence of heart disease-related mortality and Type 2 diabetes. Anxiety disorders were also highly correlated with ultraprocessed food intake, and the researchers found highly suggestive evidence that ultraprocessed foods increased all-cause mortality, Type 2 diabetes and depression.

The research was prepared by an international team from Ireland, France, Australia and the U.S. using the NOVA system. They wrote:

“These products are characterized as industrial formulations primarily composed of chemically modified substances extracted from foods, along with additives to enhance taste, texture, appearance and durability, with minimal to no inclusion of whole foods.”

A 2022 paper⁵ noted that a food product is not simply the sum of the nutrients and that “Human diets are progressively incorporating larger quantities of industrially processed foods.” According to this recent study and others, this increasing exposure is contributing to rising rates of chronic disease and illness in the population. Just some of the other health conditions associated with ultraprocessed products include:

•Declining cognition — Research suggests that a daily intake of sweets and fatty snacks can change the way we “learn, remember and feel.”⁶ Research presented at the 2022 Alzheimer’s Association International Conference⁷ showed that people who ate 20% of their diet from breakfast cereal, frozen food and soda had a 28% faster rate of cognitive decline and a 25% faster rate of decline in executive function.

•Obesity — A 2023 eight-week interventional study found a direct effect on neurobehavioral adaptation leading to an increased risk of overeating and weight gain.⁸ The senior study author, Dana M. Small, Ph.D. commented:⁹

“Adding one unhealthy snack per day to your diet changes the way your brain learns about rewards. More importantly, it does so in a way that could promote overeating. This means that even in individuals with no intrinsic or genetic risk for obesity, exposure to an unhealthy diet can produce that risk.”

A 2019 study¹⁰ compared global trends and sales of ultraprocessed food and drink and found that with an increased volume of sales per capita came a rise in population-level body mass index trajectories.

•Cancers — A 2023 study¹¹ from the Imperial College London evaluated diets of 197,426 people over 10 years and found those who ate more ultraprocessed foods had a greater risk of developing any type of cancer, specifically ovarian and breast cancers.

Consumption was also associated with an increased risk of dying from cancer. Each 10% increase was linked with a 2% increase in incidence of diagnosis and a 6% increased risk of cancer mortality.

•Premature death — A 2022 study¹² noted that consumption of ultraprocessed foods in Brazilian adults ranged from 13% to 21% of their total energy intake. Evaluation of data showed that 10.5% of all premature deaths could be attributed to the consumption of ultraprocessed food.

Based on information from the featured study if there is a dose-dependent response to consuming ultraprocessed food, it’s likely that eating more junk food would result in a higher percentage of premature deaths.

•More chronic diseases — A systematic review and meta-analysis of 43 observational studies¹³ found eating ultraprocessed food is also associated with an increased risk of wheezing, heart disease, frailty, irritable bowel syndrome and functional dyspepsia, in addition to many of the chronic illnesses already mentioned.

You May Not Be Feeling Your Age, You Might Be Feeling Your Food

Dr. Chris Van Tulleken, BBC television presenter of “What Are We Feeding Our Kids?”¹⁴ was curious about how ultraprocessed foods affect the body. Over one month, the 42-year-old increased his daily intake from 30% of ultraprocessed products to 80%, which mimicked how 20% of the U.K. population eats. By the end of four weeks, Tulleken experienced a myriad of changes, including:¹⁵

• Poor sleep
• Heartburn
• Anxiety
• Sluggishness
• Low libido
• Unhappy feelings
• Hemorrhoids (from constipation)
• Weight gain of 7 kilograms (15.4 pounds)

“I felt 10 years older, but I didn’t realize it was all [because of] the food until I stopped eating the diet,” Tulleken told the BBC.¹⁶ This is significant since the physician recognized that he had purposely changed his diet, and yet he did not recognize that feeling 10 years older after only four weeks was associated with the food he was eating.

What Country Eats More Ultraprocessed Foods

The featured study noted that the more ultraprocessed food consumed, the greater your risk of experiencing chronic disease and poor health. The study¹⁷ noted that the share of energy derived from ultraprocessed food had a significant range across countries. For example, the percentage of energy derived from ultraprocessed foods in Italy was 10%, South Korea 25%, Columbia 16% and Mexico 30%.

The authors noted the share of dietary energy from ultraprocessed products in Australia was 42% and the country with the highest share of dietary energy from ultraprocessed products was the U.S. at 58%. While this percentage of energy intake from ultraprocessed foods is disturbing enough, other data suggests it may be greater than 60%.¹⁸

Interestingly, a database of the food supply indicates that 73% of what is available to be purchased at the grocery store is ultraprocessed.¹⁹ These foods are 52% cheaper than healthier options, which is a significant consideration for many people as they have watched food prices rise out of control.

From 2021 to 2022, food prices rose 11%.²⁰ In the year ending August 2022, food prices had risen 13.5%²¹ and in 2023 they rose another 5.8%.²² This is compared to a historical rise in food prices of 2% in prior years.

Despite mounting evidence that ultraprocessed products are unhealthy and increase your risk of chronic disease and premature death, one survey showed that American adults would eat more and pay more for ultraprocessed products if they had more nutritious ingredients.²³ The survey was performed by Ayana Bio, a plant cell technology company, that will likely use this information in their marketing strategies.

For example, 74% of the adults asked said they would buy ultraprocessed products if they had health benefits, such as improving brain function, sleep or increasing energy; 67% said they would pay more if the foodstuffs contained nutritious ingredients and 68% said they would pay up to $3 more.

From this survey, it appears 84% of the younger generation and parents want more options to reduce the time they have to spend in the kitchen. Millennials, Gen Z adults and parents with children are also willing to pay more for an oxymoron — healthier ultraprocessed food.

Food Industry Pushes Back Against Change to Improve Health

Deseret News reported²⁴ that the food industry is pushing back against mounting evidence that their products may cause problems. Industry groups claim processing food increases the shelf life, which reduces food waste and lower cost. In a letter to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the Institute of Food Technologists wrote that chemical additives are there to help ensure food security “when fresh foods may not be available or accessible.”

In November 2023,²⁵ a Washington Post article suggested the nutritional guideline committee may be considering warning consumers against eating too many ultraprocessed products. According to the article, despite years of research, this is the first time the committee examined the science of the association between obesity and ultraprocessed products, including things like chicken nuggets, frozen dinners and potato chips.

The length of time it’s taken the committee to consider the association is a testimony to the strength of the food industry. If the committee’s primary concern was recognizing the link between nutrition and health, ultraprocessed products would have likely come under consideration years ago.

Fake Meat Is the Epitome of Ultraprocessed Food

The years of research detailing the health risks of consuming ultraprocessed products make it ironic that fake meat and lab-made, plant-based pseudo-foods are being passed off as healthy. It’s hard to imagine a food that’s more ultraprocessed than a lab-made burger. Dairy alternatives and plant-based or lab-grown meat are the very definition of ultraprocessed products as they’re made with heavily processed fats from industrial seed oils like soy and canola oil.

Beyond Burger steak meat patties contain 22 ingredients,²⁶ among which are expeller pressed canola oil, pea protein isolate, cellulose from bamboo, modified food starch and methylcellulose. To morph these ingredients into a patty that resembles meat requires significant processing. And if the push to move away from whole food is “best,” why are ultraprocessed products trying to imitate whole food?

While the hype and marketing point you toward believing that these products are healthy, they are fake foods that are likely to cause the same health problems that are linked to other ultraprocessed foods that have many of the same ingredients. As researchers are connecting ultraprocessed products with chronic disease and early death, the World Economic Forum is vilifying whole food as unsustainable and environmentally destructive.

Instead, they push for a transition away from whole food to a highly unnatural, ultraprocessed diet. Their largest initiative is called FReSH,²⁷ which aims to transform the food system by working with biotech and fake meat companies to replace whole foods with lab-created alternatives that are certain to be detrimental to human health.

Spring Clean Your Diet

As Americans consumed greater amounts of seed oils high in linoleic acid (LA), there was an increase in the concentration of LA in subcutaneous fat tissue, which correlates with an increase in the prevalence of asthma, obesity and diabetes.²⁸

Eliminating ultraprocessed foods from your diet is essential to keeping your LA intake low, and vice versa, as the two go hand-in-hand.

If the thought of overhauling your diet to remove ultraprocessed products seems daunting, reframe it from a move of scarcity to one of abundance. By giving up these toxic junk foods, you’re gaining a place in your diet to add in whole foods, which — instead of taking away your health one meal at a time — will give your body the nutrients it needs to heal and stay well.

• ^1, 4 The BMJ, 2024; 384:e077310
• ^2, 5 European Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 2022; 76
• ³ European Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 2022; 76 Introduction para 2
• ⁶ Wall Street Journal, March 11, 2024, line 4 (Archived)
• ⁷ Alzheimer’s Association, August 3, 2022
• ⁸ Cell Metabolism 2023;35(4) summary last line
• ⁹ Yale School of Medicine, March 22, 2023
• ¹⁰ Obesity Reviews, 2019; 20(Suppl 2) Abstract
• ¹¹ Imperial, February 1, 2023, para 5, 6
• ¹² American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 2022; doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2022.08.013
• ¹³ Obesity Reviews, 2021;22(3)
• ^14, 15, 16 BBC Food, What happened when I ate ultra-processed food for a month?
• ¹⁷ The BMJ, 2024; 384:e077310 Intro para 1
• ¹⁸ Frontiers in Nutrition, 2019; 6 2nd line
• ¹⁹ Food Tank, Database Indicates U.S. Food Supply Is 73 Percent Ultra-Processed, para 2
• ²⁰ GAO, April 11, 2023
• ²¹ U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, September 15, 2022
• ²² USDA Economic Research Service, Food Price Outlook 2024
• ²³ PR Newswire, October 16, 2023
• ²⁴ Deseret News, March 12, 2024, last subhead
• ²⁵ The Washington Post, November 7, 2023 (Archived)
• ²⁶ Business Insider, June 7, 2019
• ²⁷ Eat Forum, FReSH
• ²⁸ BMJ Open Heart, 2018;5:e000898