Is Sugar Addictive, or Are We Just Craving a Scapegoat?

A recent article in the Harvard Gazette raised the question of whether sugar was addictive. While it concluded that sugar had addictive properties, “it’s not officially classified as an addictive substance like alcohol, nicotine, or drugs.” 

Parsing the DSM-5

The official classification of alcohol, nicotine, and opioids as “addictive substances” lies not solely in the characteristics of the drugs themselves but in their use – they are all “use disorders.” The National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) defines addiction as compulsive drug-seeking despite adverse consequences. However, the American Psychiatric Association's diagnostic manual, the DSM-5, the “ground truth” definition used in scientific research, has replaced “addiction” with mild, moderate, or severe substance use disorder (SUD) based on the number of diagnostic criteria met.

The classic pharmacologic criteria – tolerance and withdrawal symptoms are just one of four major considerations. The others are: 

• Impaired control (e.g., using more than intended, failed attempts to cut back, cravings).
• Social impairment (e.g., neglecting responsibilities, relationship problems).
• Risky use (e.g., using in dangerous situations, continuing despite harm).

Numerous studies have demonstrated how addictive substances directly or indirectly produce dopamine that acts upon our reward center, creating pleasurable effects reinforcing their use. Sugar stimulates the same system, promoting the release of dopamine, but not to the same degree or with the accompanying physical changes in the brain, as seen in patients with substance use disorders. Perhaps sugar may be more accurately described as a habit-forming or a highly reinforcing substance rather than a true addiction.

The difficulty with defining sugar as addictive is that eating, including the eating of sugar, is a biological necessity, unlike alcohol, nicotine, or opioids. DSM-5 could provide a definitional workaround for sugar’s biological necessity, focusing solely on behavior, underlying physiologic drives, or desires as a sub-category of the DSM’s categorization of eating disorders. Disorder eating, which includes anorexia, bulimia, and binge eating, all focus on behavior. Binge-eating focuses on impaired control, eating rapidly, past the point of satiety, and when not “physically” hungry; social impairment in eating alone to avoid embarrassment; and continuing despite harm as evidenced by marked disgust, depression, or guilt after a binge-eating episode.     

From the viewpoint of nutritional science, there is no definition of a sugar addiction. As a widely cited review paper in the European Journal of Nutrition writes, 

“… we have reviewed the current state of the evidence for sugar addiction. Most of the evidence is limited to the animal neuroscience literature, and it is far from convincing. … There remains a paucity of human evidence in this area, and we did not consider the literature encompassing the behavioural and neural effects of sweet or palatable food consumption as this would be far too indirect to the question of sugar addiction.”

Despite the lack of scientific clarity, the phrase, sugar addiction, is often used by the general public, where the meaning is less rigorous and more emotive. As the review paper adds,

“Even the most perfunctory Internet search reveals how much emotive and explanatory power the term ‘sugar addiction’ has when used in its lay sense for individuals personally, as well as in the context of major public debates such as those over the sugar tax or campaigns such as Action on Sugar in the UK. … the lay interpretation raises the question of whether sugar addiction is a useful (if not valid) concept to help tackle obesity and/or change the food environment?”

The public debate about our food environment suffers from the same inability to clearly and scientifically define healthy or nutritious foods. Beyond the provision of essential nutrients, there is no single, universally agreed-upon scientific definition of “healthy” or “nutritious” foods because dietary needs vary by individual, culture, and context. For example, in China, “a high sodium diet has always been the “No. 1 killer” threatening the health of Chinese residents, while in the US, “A reduction in the intake of added sugars, …specifically in the quantities and context of industrially-manufactured consumables, would help not only curb hypertension rates but might also help address broader problems related to cardiometabolic disease.”

While frequently used in nutritional studies, the Nova classification of ultra-processed foods more consistently identifies the degree of processing rather than a food’s nutritional value. For example, a fortified breakfast cereal that is whole-grain, high in fiber, and lower in added sugar is both clearly nutritional and classified as ultra-processed. Its role in nutritional studies as a proxy for “good nutrition” is lost in our public debate, and like “sugar addiction,” its meaning serves a greater emotive than an elucidating role. 

A different science

Without clear scientific definitions, there can be, and there is very little settled unambiguous science on what is healthy or nutritious. So, in formulating science-informed regulations, what science is being used? Political science.

“Federal funding of the SNAP program, for example, of school lunches would be a driver for helping kids. We shouldn’t be giving 60% to kids in school processed foods that are making them sick. … But I don’t want to take food away from anybody. If you like a McDonald’s cheeseburger or a Diet Coke, which my boss loves, you should be able to get them if you want to eat Hostess Twinkies, you should be able to do that. But you should know what the impacts are on your family and your health.”

- Secretary Robert Kennedy, Jr

I’ve written previously about SNAP, the supplemental nutrition assistance program, and the less frequently discussed but critical Thrifty Food Plan (TFP), which is the basis for determining what foods are eligible for SNAP benefits. Much of the publicly voiced concerns are about SNAP beneficiaries' poor nutritional choices. As to what SNAP beneficiaries actually choose to purchase with those federal funds, consider this USDA study of typically purchased foods. 

“Across all households, more money was spent on soft drinks than any other item. SNAP households spent somewhat more on soft drinks than non-SNAP households (5 versus 4 percent). Both household groups were equally likely to purchase salty (bag) snacks (about 3 percent of food purchases), cookies (about 1 percent), and ice cream, ice milk, and sherbet (about 1 percent).”

“… both SNAP and non-SNAP households made choices that may not be fully consistent with the Dietary Guidelines for Americans.” 

Secretary Kennedy, as far as his words, seems to be leaving SNAP be. This is not necessarily the case for federal action on school meals, which has now been shifted to control by HHS, so let’s take a deeper look. 

About 95% of US public and non-profit private K–12 schools offer USDA meal programs, providing low-cost meals to around 30 million children daily. These meals can supply up to half of a child’s daily energy needs, placing schools in a key position to encourage healthy eating.  In 2010, the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act (HHFKA) strengthened USDA school nutrition requirements by increasing whole grains, fruits, and vegetables; limiting calories, sodium, and trans fats; and updating “competitive” food standards (snacks, beverages sold outside school meal programs). But it is one thing to bring the “horse to water” and another “to get the horse to drink.” As a review in Nutrients points out,

“The problem of food waste in the National Schools Lunch Program (NLSP) has been documented for decades, and the consistently low levels of consumption for various food types, especially vegetables and fruits, remains a problem.”

The USDA's Food Nutrition Service determines what foods federal funds will purchase based on the Dietary Guidelines for Americans. Those guidelines are developed by the USDA and Health and Human Services every five years and involve an “external Federal Advisory Committee to review the current body of nutrition science. The Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee includes nationally recognized scientific experts in nutrition and medicine.”

Developing policies and guidelines involve a range of stakeholders, not just experts. It is an applied science, which is why Secretary Kennedy characterized these agencies as “sock puppets for the industries that they’re supposed to regulate,” and you find:

• A bill put forward in Kansas defines candy as “flourless,” meaning a KitKat or Twix are OK, but M&Ms are verboten in their food programs.
• “The Agriculture Department has axed …Roughly $660 million that schools and child care facilities were counting on to purchase food from nearby farms through the Local Food for Schools Cooperative Agreement Program in 2025 has been canceled, according to the School Nutrition Association.” - Politico
• Ketchup, which is made from tomatoes, which are botanically a fruit, is considered a vegetable for school lunches and a condiment by the NOVA classification.
• Plant-based milks may be considered “milk substitutes” in the NSLP but “must be nutritionally equivalent to fluid milk and provide specific levels of calcium, protein, vitamins A and D, magnesium, phosphorus, potassium, riboflavin, and vitamin B-12.” This approves soy milk but leaves almond milk in the lurch. In the words of Amanda Howell, Managing Attorney for the Animal Legal Defense Fund, creating “a program that prioritizes the entrenchment of industrial animal agriculture over the health of students who have a diverse range of needs…”

So, is sugar addictive? Scientifically speaking—not really. Not in the way nicotine or opioids hijack your brain and body. But culturally and politically? Absolutely. Sugar has become the perfect scapegoat: it’s everywhere, it tastes good, and it plays right into our anxieties about health, obesity, and moral virtue. Without clear definitions, robust human data, and consistent nutritional standards, we’ve let public fear, industry interests, and policymaking theater do the heavy lifting. The result? A food system where ketchup counts as a vegetable, soy milk passes while almond milk flunks, and “ultra-processed” becomes a slur rather than a science. We’re not addicted to sugar—we’re addicted to the illusion that if we could just demonize the right ingredient, we could fix a broken food system. Spoiler alert: it’s going to take a lot more than cutting out cupcakes.

Sources: Is sugar addictive? Harvard Gazette