🔗 Share this article

In a first-of-its-kind legal move, San Francisco is preparing to launch what is being called the country's inaugural government lawsuit taking aim at major food manufacturers regarding ultra-processed foods. The city argues that municipalities have been shouldering the significant costs of addressing illnesses linked to the widespread public consumption of these manufactured goods.

The Central Claim of the Legal Challenge

The city's legal action, to be submitted in superior court, targets ten industry giants responsible for manufacturing some of the country's most popular food and beverage items. This roster reportedly features everything from breaded chicken pieces and frozen pizzas to potato chips and sugary breakfast cereals. Notably, the action also includes products like certain breads and granola bars that are often promoted as "healthy" options.

The filing alleges these companies of engaging in "deceptive business practices" in their marketing and sales. It states that these tactics violate state laws governing deceptive trade and community harm. A central allegation is that the corporations were aware their products were linked to illness but continued marketing them.

"I am appalled that families for years are being deceived and buying food that's not real food," said the city's top legal official.

Defining UPFs

UPFs are formulated using complex procedures and contain components not commonly used in a family pantry. These include preservatives, flavor enhancers, synthetic dyes, and binding agents, with minimal intact food content.

Research indicates that more than 70% of the food available in the U.S. is made up of foods typically classified as ultra-processed. Concerningly, children are estimated to get over 60% of their caloric intake from such foods.

The Documented Dangers

A extensive global study, released recently, found that eating ultra-processed foods is connected to harm in every major organ system of the human body. The analysis linked these foods with an increased risk of a numerous chronic diseases, encompassing:

• Cancer
• Excessive weight gain
• Type 2 diabetes
• Mental health struggles
• Cardiovascular illness
• Cognitive decline

The scientists of that report concluded that the proliferation of UPFs is being propelled by multinational companies, not individual dietary choices. They described UPFs as a primary driver of a worldwide epidemic of chronic illness linked to diet, with corporations prioritizing profit above all else.

Partisan Agreement on a Rare Issue

This case represents a unusual instance of alignment between the liberal city of San Francisco and the Trump administration. The federal Health and Human Services Secretary has vocally opposed ultra-processed foods, advising Americans to reduce their intake on products with added sugar, sodium, unhealthy fats, dyes, and chemical preservatives as part of a "public health initiative" mission.

The city attorney stressed that while he diverges with the administration on other medical subjects, the research on ultra-processed foods is "clear-cut." He remarked, "Several the perspectives of this administration are unscientific, but this is distinct. Even a broken clock is right twice a day."

Implicated Companies and Historical Context

The defendants named in the lawsuit reportedly include industry titans such as:

• The Coca-Cola Company and PepsiCo
• Kraft Heinz Company
• General Mills and Kellogg
• Nestlé USA and Mondelez International
• Post Holdings, Mars Incorporated, and ConAgra Brands

This action builds upon other regulatory steps in California. Earlier this year, the state approved a cross-party legislation that became the first in the U.S. to provide a statutory definition of ultra-processed foods, creating a framework for restricting them from schools. The state has also prohibited several additives, including artificial colors linked to health and behavior issues in children, within school meals.

The city attorney's office has a track record in securing victories against major industries on public health matters, including cases against tobacco companies, paint companies, and pharmaceutical firms.

The lawsuit will seek unspecified damages for the financial burden that municipalities shoulder for treating residents whose health has been harmed by the regular intake of UPFs.