Claiming “the food industry knew their products were making people sick,” San Francisco’s city attorney yesterday (Dec. 2) filed a lawsuit against 10 food & beverage companies, “the country’s largest manufacturers of ultra-processed foods.”
The 10 companies are essentially the same ones named in a December 2024 lawsuit in Philadelphia: Coca-Cola Co., Conagra Brands, General Mills, Kellogg Co., Kraft Heinz Co., Mars Inc., Mondelez International, Nestle USA, PepsiCo and Post Holdings. (The Philadelphia lawsuit separately named Kellogg Co and its recent sister company Kellanova.) That suit was dismissed this August.
The filing mirrors the Philadelphia suit in many ways: In addition to naming the same defendants, it makes the same comparisons to Big Tobacco companies in the 1980s and mourns the consolidation of the food industry in the past 50 years. And Morgan & Morgan, the law firm that filed that unsuccessful case, is listed among the supporting law firms on this San Francisco one.
Also like the Philadelphia case, it hearkens back to the alleged 1999 closed door meeting in which a former Kraft Foods executive allegedly raised red flags about the health effects – and business liability – of what would come to be known as ultraprocessed foods and “begged them [other food company executives] to change.”
“The proliferation of ultra-processed foods in the American diet has been linked to a host of serious health conditions, imposing untold health care costs on Americans, as well as cities and states across the nation,” City Attorney David Chiu’s announcement said.
“The lawsuit alleges the food industry knew that their products were making people sick, but they continued to devise and market increasingly addictive and harmful products in order to maximize profits.”
Chiu filed the lawsuit yesterday in San Francisco Superior Court. It’s a civil suit brought on behalf of all citizens of California, claiming a violation of California’s unfair competition law and public nuisance.
“These companies created a public health crisis with the engineering and marketing of ultra-processed foods,” Chiu said in a news conference. “They took food and made it unrecognizable and harmful to the human body.”
The suit seeks an end to “further deceptive marketing and requiring them to take affirmative action to ameliorate the effects of their prior false marketing; … [ending] the public nuisance in San Francisco that Defendants created or assisted in creating [and payments to abate that public nuisance]; penalties; and plaintiff’s attorney fees.”
“We must be clear that this is not about consumers making better choices,” said Chiu. “Recent surveys show Americans want to avoid ultra-processed foods, but we are inundated by them. These companies engineered a public health crisis, they profited handsomely, and now they need to take responsibility for the harm they have caused.”
In trying to define UPFs, Chiu’s press release relies on the 2009 scientific paper by Brazilian researcher Carlos Monteiro, who first used the term ultraprocessed foods. “Ultra-processed foods are former whole foods that have been broken down, chemically modified, combined with additives, and then reassembled using industrial techniques such as molding, extrusion, and pressurization. They may contain additives that are only used in the manufacturing of ultra-processed foods, such as colors, flavor enhancers, emulsifiers, artificial sweeteners, thickeners, and foaming, anti-foaming, bulking, and gelling agents.
“Ultra-processed foods include candies, chips, processed meats, sodas, energy drinks, boxed macaroni and cheese, breakfast cereals, and other products made using industrial methods that cannot typically be replicated in a home kitchen,” the news release continues. “These foods are a combination of chemicals designed to stimulate cravings and encourage overconsumption.”
And it cites the usual statistics about health concerns and the proliferation of these types of foods in American and global diets.
The Consumer Brands Assn., the lobbying group for food and all consumer packaged goods, countered, "There is currently no agreed upon scientific definition of ultra-processed 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. "Companies adhere to the rigorous evidence-based safety standards established by the FDA to deliver safe, affordable and convenient products that consumers depend on every day. Americans deserve facts based on sound science in order to make the best choices for their health."
Also see our May coverstory: Ultraprocessed or Not? The Answers Aren’t Yet Clear | Food Processing
About the Author
Dave Fusaro
Editor in Chief
Dave Fusaro has served as editor in chief of Food Processing magazine since 2003. Dave has 30 years experience in food & beverage industry journalism and has won several national ASBPE writing awards for his Food Processing stories. Dave has been interviewed on CNN, quoted in national newspapers and he authored a 200-page market research report on the milk industry. Formerly an award-winning newspaper reporter who specialized in business writing, he holds a BA in journalism from Marquette University. Prior to joining Food Processing, Dave was Editor-In-Chief of Dairy Foods and was Managing Editor of Prepared Foods.