As a mental health nutritionist who has spent over a decade working with eating disorders while simultaneously researching ultra-processed food addiction, I recently participated in a thought-provoking dialogue on the EDeology Podcast. The conversation, hosted by Elka Cubacub, brought together Libby Supan (a therapist and certified Intuitive Eating counselor) and yours truly to explore one of the most divisive topics in our field: can food be addictive? Is there a space for food addiction in eating disorder recovery?
The Middle Ground is Often the Loneliest
For years, I’ve occupied what feels like a solitary position in the eating disorder field – acknowledging both the validity of intuitive eating approaches AND the scientific evidence for ultra-processed food addiction. This middle ground, where convergence between opposing ideas exists, often feels isolating. As I shared in the podcast, “I’ve taken that middle ground and it’s always felt very lonely because it seems like people on both sides of extremes… get nervous about the middle ground and tend to gravitate toward their camp or their lane.”
Beyond Personal Experience: The Science of Ultra-Processed Food Addiction
What distinguishes my approach from earlier models of food addiction is its specificity and scientific grounding. We’re not talking about being “addicted to sugar” or “addicted to carbs” in the simplistic way these concepts were understood in the 1980s and 90s. Instead, research over the past decade has revealed how ultra-processed foods – explicitly engineered for profit maximization – can hijack brain reward systems in ways that mirror substance use disorders.
During our conversation, Libby acknowledged this distinction, noting that my approach was “totally different” from what she had encountered before. This isn’t about demonizing whole foods or even all processed foods – it’s about understanding how certain industrially manufactured products are designed to override our natural satiety signals.
The Challenge of Groupthink in Clinical Spaces
One of the most revealing moments in our dialogue came when we discussed the professional consequences of challenging established narratives. When asked what would happen if she publicly supported the concept of food addiction, Libby candidly shared: “That would be disgrace. I’d be a hypocrite… I would be looked down upon.”
This admission highlights a troubling reality in our field: the presence of groupthink that renders it professionally unsafe to explore certain scientific concepts. As someone who published my first paper on sugar addiction years ago, I remember the fear of being ostracized for going against the grain. Yet science demands that we update our understanding as new evidence emerges.
The Cost of Binary Thinking
Throughout our conversation, a pattern emerged that I’ve observed repeatedly in eating disorder spaces: the tendency to make sweeping generalizations based on limited data sets. When clinicians declare “food addiction doesn’t exist” based solely on their clinical experience, they’re inadvertently closing the door on patients who might benefit from understanding their relationship with ultra-processed foods through an addiction lens. It’s almost as if the clinician (often in recovery themselves) is prioritizing their food philosophy over patient care.
This isn’t to say that everyone who struggles with food has an addiction–far from it. Many people presenting with what they believe is food addiction are actually experiencing the effects of chronic dietary restraint. But by maintaining rigid either/or thinking, we miss the opportunity to help those who genuinely do experience addiction-like responses to ultra-processed foods.
Commercial Determinants of Health: The Missing Piece
Perhaps the most critical element often absent from these discussions is the role of the food industry. Having studied commercial determinants of health extensively, I’ve seen how food manufacturers use sophisticated research to create products that maximize dopamine response and override satiety. When we ignore this reality and insist “all foods fit,” we inadvertently align with industry messaging that serves profit over public health.
Moving Forward: Embracing Nuance & Science
The path forward requires us to hold multiple truths simultaneously:
- Chronic restriction can create addiction-like behaviors around food
- Ultra-processed foods can genuinely trigger addictive responses in some individuals
- Both intuitive eating and addiction models can coexist when applied appropriately
- Scientific evidence should guide our clinical practice, not fear of professional ostracism
As our conversation concluded, both Libby and I recognized our shared passion for helping people heal their relationships with food. The difference lies not in our intentions but in our willingness to embrace complexity and challenge established paradigms when science demands it.
A Call for Open Dialogue
If we truly want to advance the field of eating disorders, we must create space for diverse perspectives grounded in science. This means moving beyond the echo chambers that reinforce our existing beliefs and engaging with research that might challenge our assumptions.
The stakes are too high for anything less. Our clients deserve evidence-based care that acknowledges the full complexity of their experiences–whether that’s the harmful effects of diet culture, the reality of eating disorders, or the genuine addictive potential of ultra-processed foods.
As I continue my work at the intersection of nutrition, mental health, and addiction, I remain committed to fostering these difficult but necessary conversations. Only through open dialogue and scientific rigor can we build treatment models that truly serve all those seeking recovery, rather than serving the establishment.
Listen to my first interview with Elka.
Listen to Libby’s first interview with Elka.
Have thoughts about ultra-processed food addiction in eating disorder recovery? Please reach out and share with me!
