In November 2025, The Lancet published a three-paper series on ultra-processed foods. According to a summary from the Association for the Study of Obesity, the series drew on observational studies, clinical trials, and policy analysis. It linked higher intake of ultra-processed foods with increased risks of obesity, type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and premature death. It also pointed to food environments, commercial determinants, and global supply chains as part of the reason these foods now dominate so many diets.
Notice what that framing leaves out. The series, as the ASO describes it, treats ultra-processed food as a problem of systems and markets rather than a problem of addiction. Yet in everyday conversation, and in a growing body of research, the word “addictive” keeps coming up. Researchers have borrowed tools and terms from the study of alcohol and drugs to ask whether some foods can hook people in a similar way. That overlap between food reward and drug reward is also part of the backdrop to the growing interest in GLP 1 for addiction, since the same medicines that changed weight care are now being tested against cravings for alcohol.
So is food really addictive? The honest answer is that scientists are still arguing about it.
Measuring Something That Feels Like Craving
To study food addiction, researchers first needed a way to measure it. The most widely used tool is the Yale Food Addiction Scale, or YFAS, which was developed to measure food addiction. It draws on the criteria used for substance use disorders and applies them to eating.
In October 2023, The BMJ published an analysis titled “Social, clinical, and policy implications of ultra-processed food addiction,” led by Ashley Gearhardt of the University of Michigan with co-authors including Alexandra DiFeliceantonio of Virginia Tech. According to a Virginia Tech release reported by ScienceDaily, the team reviewed 281 studies from 36 countries. Using the YFAS, they estimated that ultra-processed food addiction occurs in 14% of adults and 12% of children.
The authors put those numbers in context. In adults, they wrote, the figure is similar to the levels of addiction seen for other legal substances, such as 14% for alcohol and 18% for tobacco. They described the level of implied addiction in children as “unprecedented.”
The Language Researchers Borrow From Addiction Science
The case for calling some foods addictive rests on a set of behaviors and biological signals that look familiar to anyone who studies substance use. The BMJ authors argued that, in some people, behavior around ultra-processed food may meet the criteria for a substance use disorder. These are the main parallels they and others have drawn:
- Loss of control: The BMJ authors describe less control over intake, a pattern that also appears in the criteria for substance use disorders.
- Intense cravings: The BMJ analysis lists strong cravings among the behaviors that could meet diagnostic criteria, much as cravings are central to alcohol and drug problems.
- Withdrawal-like symptoms: The researchers also included withdrawal symptoms on their list of behaviors that could meet diagnostic criteria.
- Continued use despite harm: Eating continues even when people experience consequences such as binge eating disorder, poorer physical and mental health, and lower quality of life, according to the authors.
- Reward signals in the brain: As reported by STV News, the authors noted that refined carbohydrates or fats evoke similar levels of extracellular dopamine in the brain striatum to those seen with nicotine and alcohol.
- Speed and design: The authors suggested that how quickly these foods deliver carbohydrates and fats to the gut could play a role, and that the altered food matrix makes them easier and faster to consume.
DiFeliceantonio offered a simple illustration in the Virginia Tech release. Whole foods tend to provide carbohydrate or fat, but rarely both in large amounts. An apple is mostly carbohydrate, and salmon is mostly fat. “Many ultra-processed foods have higher levels of both,” she said. “That combination has a different effect on the brain.”
Why Some Scientists Push Back
Not everyone accepts the comparison. In a 2014 review in Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, Johannes Hebebrand and colleagues concluded that “food addiction” is a misnomer. They wrote that “the currently available evidence for a substance-based food addiction is poor.” They did not deny that people can lose control around food. Instead, they proposed the term “eating addiction” to describe a behavioral problem with eating, rather than a chemical dependence on a particular ingredient.
Caution also came from public health bodies. STV News reported that experts on the UK government’s Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition cited “uncertainties around the quality of evidence available” on ultra-processed foods. Even the BMJ authors stressed that “not all foods have addictive potential.”
Where GLP-1 Medicines Enter the Picture
GLP-1 receptor agonists such as semaglutide are FDA-approved for diabetes and obesity. Decreased appetite is one of their listed effects. Researchers are now testing whether the same drugs might also reduce cravings for alcohol.
A small randomized trial published in JAMA Psychiatry on February 12, 2025, offered an early look. Led by Christian Hendershot at the University of Southern California, the study gave 48 adults with alcohol use disorder, who were not seeking treatment, either low-dose semaglutide or a placebo for nine weeks. According to USC, those on semaglutide reported reduced alcohol craving and fewer heavy drinking days. By the second month, they had cut the amount they drank on drinking days by nearly 30%, compared with about 2% in the placebo group.
These results are promising but early. Semaglutide is not approved to treat alcohol use disorder. The FDA has approved three medications for that condition: disulfiram, acamprosate, and naltrexone. The researchers themselves said larger and longer studies in broader populations are needed to understand safety and effectiveness.
What This Means for Everyday Eating
For most readers, the scientific debate matters less than the experience behind it. If you find certain foods hard to stop eating, that experience is real, whatever researchers end up calling it. The Lancet series suggests that part of the challenge lies in a food environment shaped by commercial forces.
If eating feels persistently out of control, or if it is tied to distress, a conversation with a primary care doctor or a registered dietitian is a sensible first step.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
1. Is “food addiction” an official medical diagnosis?
Not at present. Researchers measure it with tools like the Yale Food Addiction Scale, which adapts substance use disorder criteria to eating, but critics such as Hebebrand and colleagues argue that “eating addiction,” a behavioral pattern, is a more accurate description than addiction to a food substance.
2. Did the 2025 Lancet series say ultra-processed foods are addictive?
Based on the Association for the Study of Obesity’s summary, no. The series focused on links between ultra-processed foods and conditions such as obesity, type 2 diabetes, and cardiovascular disease, and on commercial and environmental drivers. The addiction framing comes from a separate line of research, including the 2023 BMJ analysis.
3. Can GLP-1 medicines be prescribed for alcohol cravings?
GLP-1 medicines like semaglutide are approved for diabetes and obesity, not for alcohol use disorder. A 2025 JAMA Psychiatry trial of 48 adults found reduced drinking and cravings, but the researchers called for larger and longer studies, so anyone interested should discuss the options with a doctor