The ultra-processed food industry is largely influenced by the strategies of tobacco companies.

A study published in June 2026 in the American Journal of Public Health examines the role played by Philip Morris Companies in the development of Lunchables, a range of ultra-processed meals intended for children and families in the United States between 1985 and 2007.[1]. The author uses internal company documents to trace the links between the tobacco industry and the rise of this food product. According to the article, the significance of this case goes beyond the Lunchables story alone. It also offers a better understanding of how certain design methods developed for tobacco have been reused in the ultra-processed food industry.

Synergies between tobacco and ultra-processed food

The study's author, Laura A. Schmidt, from the Institute for Health Policy Studies and the Department of Human and Social Sciences at the University of California, San Francisco School of Medicine, explains that Philip Morris developed a strategy of "technical synergies" between its tobacco, ultra-processed food, and beverage businesses. The idea was to pool expertise in research, formulation, packaging, and industrial processes to accelerate innovation and support the growth of the group's various brands.

This logic reportedly applied to technologies such as supercritical CO2 extraction, used to remove nicotine from tobacco, but also to modify the composition of certain foods. The article highlights how knowledge gained from cigarette research could be transferred to food product formulation. Furthermore, companies used similar strategies to expand their international operations in the tobacco and food sectors, notably through the aggressive acquisition of smaller food companies.

Thus, tobacco companies like RJ Reynolds and Philip Morris have transposed their cigarette sales strategies to those of ultra-processed foods after acquiring companies such as Nabisco and Kraft. These strategies include optimizing carbohydrate and lipid formulations for rapid absorption, maximizing the "hedonic effect," and creating products that provide immediate but fleeting satisfaction, thereby encouraging consumers to quickly demand more.

Since Kraft launched Lunchables under Philip Morris, the company became independent before merging with Heinz to form Kraft-Heinz. Philip Morris has since changed its name to Altria.

A consumer-centric approach

The study also describes a “consumer-centric development” approach, already used for cigarettes and then applied to Lunchables. Product teams relied on testing, focus groups, and feedback to design products deemed more appealing, especially to children.

According to the author, this logic led to products designed to meet expectations of pleasure, practicality, and autonomy. Children appreciated the ability to "create" their own meals, while parents were reassured by the convenience and the visibility of the ingredients through the packaging.

A dietary strategy comparable to that of "harm reduction" for tobacco

The study also shows how Philip Morris sought to adapt the brand to the growing nutritional concerns of the 1990s. After developing "king size" food products mimicking "king size" cigarettes, Kraft General Foods launched lighter versions of Lunchables as criticism of childhood obesity mounted, continuing a strategy already employed for so-called "light" cigarettes.

The study describes these reformulations as a commercial response to growing public distrust, without abandoning brand logic. At the same time, Philip Morris continued to promote products as “healthier” or “less guilt-inducing,” an approach the author considers comparable to that used for some tobacco products.

These misleading claims, akin to a "harm reduction" strategy, are denounced by public health experts. In addition to well-known health risks (obesity, related metabolic and cardiometabolic diseases, etc.), Cindy Leung, a professor of nutrition and public health at Harvard, stated at a press conference for the American Journal of Public Health that people whose diets were high in ultra-processed foods had a 58% increased risk of developing dementia, a 46% increased risk of mild cognitive impairment, and a 47% increased risk of developing either of these conditions.[2].

A broader issue for American and global public health

Beyond the Lunchables case, the study argues that the tobacco industry has helped shape a portion of the ultra-processed food supply in the United States, and indeed, globally. According to Tera Fazzino, lead author of a previous study and associate professor of psychology at the University of Kansas, Philip Morris and RJ Reynolds established a presence on most continents from the late 1980s to the mid-2000s. Even though they largely withdrew from this sector as early as 2007 under legal and regulatory pressure, their influence remains dominant in the global distribution of ultra-processed foods. At least 70% of the food consumed in the United States is estimated to consist of ultra-processed and highly appealing foods, and their presence is rapidly increasing worldwide.

Laura Schmidt believes that these practices illustrate the circulation to this day of industrial and marketing methods between sectors, with potential effects on increasing the consumption of products rich in sugar, salt, fats and additives.

The study calls for applying the public health and regulatory tools already used against tobacco to the world of ultra-processed foods. It suggests that child protection policies, marketing restrictions, and certain accountability measures could inspire new approaches to food.

While the Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) movement is currently trying to draw attention to ultra-processed foods, experts like Marion Nestle, a nutritionist and professor emerita of public health at New York University, have pointed out that the Trump administration implemented policy changes that could worsen the problem and failed to take steps that could have improved it, such as redirecting government subsidies from corn to whole fruits and vegetables. These subsidies have made the United States heavily dependent on high-fructose corn syrup, a key ingredient in many ultra-processed products. Furthermore, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) also makes whole foods more accessible, but the current administration is trying to reduce the number of beneficiaries.[3].

Such reluctance to combat the epidemic of addiction to ultra-processed foods is reminiscent of the pro-tobacco and nicotine stance of the Trump administration., who recently lobbied the FDA to authorize flavorings for vaping products. This decision is strongly criticized because of the attractive and addictive nature of these products among young people and non-smokers.

©Generation Without Tobacco

AD

[1]Laura A. Schmidt, Tobacco Industry Contributions to the Development of Ultraprocessed Food in the United States, 1985‒2007: A Case Study of Lunchables, American Journal of Public Health, published June 3, 2026, accessed June 4, 2026

[2]Olivier Daniel, Big Tobacco Playbook Guides Ultra-Processed Food Marketing to Children, Infonasional.com, published June 3, 2026, accessed June 4, 2026

[3]Hannah Harris Green, Big tobacco uses cigarette playbook to help sell ultra-processed foods, journal reveals, The Guardian, published on June 3, 2026, accessed on June 4, 2026

National Committee Against Smoking |