The city of San Francisco, CA, is suing several large-scale food manufacturers, alleging the companies knowingly marketed addictive food products while hiding health risks.
“These companies created a public health crisis with the engineering and marketing of ultra-processed foods,” said San Francisco City Attorney David Chiu in a news release. “These companies engineered a public health crisis, they profited handsomely, and now they need to take responsibility for the harm they have caused.”
Chiu filed suit in early December in the San Francisco Superior Court on behalf of the people of California against Kraft Heinz Company, Mondelez International, Post Holdings, The Coca-Cola Company, PepsiCo, General Mills, Nestle USA, Kellogg, Mars Incorporated and ConAgra Brands.
Chiu asserts that ultra-processed foods (UPFs) have been linked to serious health conditions, imposing chronic health issues and health care costs on Americans.
Suit details
The complaint describes UPFs as former whole foods that have been broken down, chemically modified, combined with additives and reassembled using industrial techniques. Examples include candies, chips, processed meats, sodas and breakfast cereals. The city notes that the foods are designed to stimulate cravings and encourage overconsumption.
The complaint cites growing consensus on the link between UPFs and Type 2 diabetes and related diseases.
“Just last year, the World Health Organization and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations issued a joint statement recognizing that ‘a large and growing body of evidence suggests that consumption of highly processed foods described as ultra-processed foods by the NOVA classification scheme (NOVA classification group 4) is associated with negative health outcomes,’” the lawsuit cited.
The complaint also points to tobacco companies acquiring several food companies in the 1960s, with the food companies “using the deceitful tactics it inherited from the Big Tobacco industry to flood the market with harmful UPF products and to aggressively sell those products to children.”
The complaint alleges that the food companies have had knowledge of public health consequences from UPFs for decades, but have continued to market their products and make increasingly addictive products with little nutritional value.
With health expenditures increasing from alleged increased UPF consumption, the lawsuit also noted that the state of California and city of San Francisco are spending billions of dollars per year on health care. In 2024, Medi-Cal accounted for $124.1 billion in expenditures, with $3.95 billion attributable to San Francisco, the city said.
“For decades, our communities have paid the price for an industry that put profit ahead of people,” said San Francisco Supervisor Shamann Walton. “We see the impact in rising rates of diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and the strain on our health system.”
The complaint seeks an order enjoining the food companies from deceptive marketing, and requiring them to take action to “correct the effects of their behavior.” The suit also seeks restitution and civil penalties to help offset health care costs.
The Consumer Brands Association condemned the complaint. “There is currently no agreed-upon scientific definition of ultraprocessed foods, and attempting to classify foods as unhealthy simply because they are processed, or demonizing food by ignoring its full nutrient content, misleads consumers and exacerbates health disparities,” said Sarah Gallo, senior vice president of product policy.
What does USDA say about UPFs?
USDA and the Food and Drug Administration are currently developing a definition for “ultra-processed foods,” as there is not yet a single, universal definition. Classification systems use the terms “ultra-processed” or “highly processed,” but classification can vary between systems due to differing definitions.
The most common food classification system, the NOVA system, was developed by Brazilian researchers, which classifies food into four categories: unprocessed or minimally processed foods, processed culinary ingredients, processed foods, and ultra-processed food. Factors include the use of certain ingredients and substances (emulsifiers, bulking agents or thickeners), industrial processing technologies and packaging.
“Foods commonly considered to be ultra-processed encompass a broad range of industrially processed foods, such as soft drinks and many packaged snacks,” according to USDA. However, other foods considered to be ultra-processed could also include whole grain products or yogurt, which USDA said are known to have beneficial effects on health.
“It is important therefore to consider unintended consequences of an overly-inclusive definition of (ultra-processed foods) that could discourage intake of potentially beneficial foods,” the department continued.
In the latest Dietary Guidelines for Americans released earlier this month, USDA does not mention “ultra-processed foods,” instead referring to them as “highly processed.” The guidelines recommend limiting highly processed foods, along with added sugars and refined carbohydrates. — Anna Miller Fortozo, WLJ managing editor
