Tobacco companies did not invent packaged food. But when major U.S. tobacco corporations expanded aggressively into the food business, they brought decades of experience selling cigarettes with them.
A historical analysis found that Philip Morris and R.J. Reynolds used strategies developed in the tobacco industry as they built international food businesses from the mid-1980s through the mid-2000s. Those approaches included acquiring regional companies, building large distribution networks, introducing bigger package sizes and marketing lighter versions of products to health-conscious consumers.
The peer-reviewed study, published in the American Journal of Public Health, does not show that every packaged food is harmful or that tobacco companies single-handedly created the modern food environment. It also does not prove that foods and cigarettes affect the body in the same way.
Instead, the findings add historical context to a growing public-health conversation about the products filling grocery-store shelves and the forces shaping what people eat.
“We’d previously published on U.S. tobacco company activities in relation to the U.S. food system,” said Tera Fazzino, the study’s lead author and an associate professor of psychology at the University of Kansas. “In that prior study, I noted that tobacco-owned food company activities extended far beyond the United States.”
For about two decades, tobacco companies held major positions in the food industry. Philip Morris acquired General Foods in 1985 and Kraft in 1988. R.J. Reynolds acquired Nabisco in 1985. Through these companies and their subsidiaries, tobacco corporations sold familiar products across numerous categories and international markets.
According to the new analysis, food sales became a major part of the companies’ business portfolios. Fazzino said Philip Morris generated comparable sales from its tobacco and food businesses for a substantial period, while R.J. Reynolds maintained a sizable international food presence.
The companies expanded by acquiring local food businesses and building distribution systems within different regions. Philip Morris moved quickly into Canada and developed a significant presence in Europe and parts of Asia and the Asia-Pacific region. R.J. Reynolds focused heavily on Central America, South America and Mexico while also operating in parts of Europe and Asia.
Those regional expansions gave tobacco-owned companies the infrastructure to sell food products widely and efficiently.
The researchers also identified parallels between strategies used to market cigarettes and approaches later applied to food products.
One example was product size. Tobacco companies had introduced king-size cigarettes as a way to increase consumption opportunities. Food businesses later marketed king-size sugary drinks, cookies and other products.
Another parallel involved health-conscious marketing. Tobacco companies developed low-tar and low-nicotine cigarettes to appeal to smokers concerned about health risks. Food businesses later promoted low-fat, light and reduced-calorie versions of products while maintaining flavors designed to appeal to consumers.
“For example, they manipulated product size,” Fazzino said. “Just as they had introduced ‘king-size’ cigarettes to increase consumption occasions, they later used similar size strategies in food products — king-size sugary drinks, cookies and other items.”
The comparison between cigarettes and food requires care. Cigarettes are inherently harmful and unnecessary. Food is essential, and packaged foods vary considerably in nutritional value, cost, convenience and purpose.
A frozen dinner, a sugary drink, a breakfast cereal and a canned soup may all be highly processed, but that does not mean they are nutritionally identical or play the same role in someone’s diet.
The terminology can also be confusing.
Ultraprocessed food is a broad category that generally includes industrially manufactured products made with ingredients or additives that are not commonly used in home kitchens. Hyperpalatable food refers more specifically to products with certain combinations of fat, sugar, sodium or refined carbohydrates that may make them especially rewarding to eat.
The categories can overlap, but they are not synonyms. Not every ultraprocessed product is hyperpalatable, and the broader conversation should not flatten every packaged item into the same category.
Fazzino’s earlier research examined food products sold by tobacco-owned companies in the United States from 1988 to 2001. That study found that tobacco-owned foods were 29% more likely to be classified as fat-and-sodium hyperpalatable and 80% more likely to be classified as carbohydrate-and-sodium hyperpalatable than foods not owned by tobacco companies during that period.
The earlier study did not prove that the companies deliberately intended to create addictive foods. The newer historical analysis offers additional evidence that tobacco companies adapted familiar business, marketing and product-development strategies as they expanded into food markets.
Tobacco companies divested from their food businesses by the early to mid-2000s. But the researchers argue that their influence may have continued after the ownership structures changed.
“The food companies continued operating under profit-maximizing models that had already proven successful for other addictive products,” Fazzino said. “It’s likely other food companies observed these strategies and adopted similar approaches.”
That is a plausible interpretation, not proof that every present-day food-marketing practice can be traced directly to tobacco ownership. Food companies operated before tobacco corporations entered the market, and many social, economic and cultural factors have influenced the way people eat.
Still, the history matters.
Food decisions are often framed as individual choices: read the label, control portions and resist temptation. But shoppers make those decisions within an environment shaped by product availability, pricing, advertising, package sizes and decades of corporate strategy.
Researchers and policymakers are now debating whether some lessons from tobacco regulation could be useful in the food system. Proposals include clearer warning labels, restrictions on marketing to children and greater scrutiny of products designed to encourage frequent consumption.
The comparison has limits. People do not need cigarettes. They do need food. Any policy discussion must account for affordability, access, cultural differences and the practical role convenience foods can play in busy households.
The study does not provide a simple rule for deciding what to buy. Nor does it mean people should fear every item in a box, package or can.
It does offer a wider lens. The modern grocery aisle did not develop by accident. Many of the products competing for attention were shaped by sophisticated business strategies designed to increase their appeal, expand their reach and encourage consumers to keep buying them.
Understanding that history can make the conversation about food choices more realistic and less judgmental. What people eat is personal, but the environment in which they make those decisions has been carefully built.
Tera Fazzino’s time during the study was partially supported by the National Institute of General Medical Sciences and the Office of the Director of the National Institutes of Health.