Regulatory science methods can test the addictive properties of foods: A proof-of-concept pilot study

Hyper-palatable foods (HPF) contain pairs of ingredients (e.g., fat and sodium) at thresholds not found in nature. The ingredient pairs in hyper-palatable foods are hypothesized to drive their reinforcing properties; however, this premise has not been tested using abuse liability assessment methodology. This proof-of-concept pilot used an acute dose-effects paradigm to evaluate the reinforcing effects of full-dose hyper-palatable foods (potato chips) versus negative control and modified-dose stimuli. This within-subjects, double-blind, crossover-design study was conducted with N = 20 participants in a laboratory setting. Food stimuli consisted of regular potato chips; a negative control low in fat, sodium, and carbohydrates (Jicama vegetable chip, baked); and modified-dose potato chips (either no fat or no sodium). In each of four sessions, participants completed an acute subjective effects test, a food purchase task to evaluate demand elasticity for each chip condition (sensitivity to escalating prices), and a self-administration task, which characterized break point, the highest level at which participants worked to self-administer chips with escalating response requirements. Full-dose chips were rated significantly higher on liking, wanting, craving, and willingness to eat again, versus negative control (p = .011-.0001). Participants exhibited lower demand elasticity for the full-dose chips (p < .0001), and higher break point (p < .0001), suggesting they valued full-dose chips more as reinforcers versus negative control. A similar pattern was observed for the modified-dose chips versus negative control, with smaller differences. Findings overall indicated dose-response effects across the stimuli, supporting the premise that abuse liability assessment methodology can be applied to test the addictive properties of hyper-palatable foods. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2026 APA, all rights reserved).