In a historic action, San Francisco on Tuesday became the first government to file a lawsuit against food manufacturers over ultra-processed snacks and drinks that officials argue are wreaking havoc on Americans\u2019 health. <\/p>\n
San Francisco\u2019s lawsuit, which names 10 of the most popular food manufacturers known for highly processed fare \u2014 Kraft Heinz Company, Mondelez International, Post Holdings, The Coca-Cola Company, PepsiCo, General Mills, Nestle USA, Kellogg, Mars Incorporated and Conagra Brands \u2014 argues that the food industry knew its products were making people sick, but continued to market the addictive foods to maximize profits.<\/p>\n
The suit doesn\u2019t seek a ban on the sale of any products, but instead a statewide order prohibiting the companies from continuing what the city describes as \u201cdeceptive marketing\u201d targeting children, particularly in Black and Latino communities. The city is also asking for the companies to pay an unspecified amount of money to abate what officials have called a public health crisis.<\/p>\n
The lawsuit is reminiscent of legal battles against large tobacco companies in the 1990s in which states sought to recover billions in healthcare costs associated with treating smoking-related illnesses. That fight ended with a master settlement agreement that provided funds to states and also restricted tobacco advertising, marketing and promotions. <\/p>\n
But tobacco companies, including Philip Morris and R.J. Reynolds, purchased major food companies in the 1980s and used the same marketing techniques that once got people to purchase addictive cigarettes to now buy food that is highly palatable, but also often unhealthy, said San Francisco City Atty. David Chiu.<\/p>\n
\u201cLike the tobacco industry, they knew their products make people very sick, but hid the truth from the public, profited from untold billions and left Americans to deal with the consequences,\u201d Chiu said during a news conference Tuesday. \u201cWe\u2019re talking about food that is not found in nature, created by combining artificial chemicals with industrialized processes.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cYou can see a few of the worst offenders right here,\u201d he said, pointing to a table piled high with staple snacks like Oreos, strawberry-flavored Cheerios, Lunchables, Hot Pockets and Cheetos that are favorites of many Americans, including countless children.<\/p>\n
The companies named in the lawsuit did not immediately respond to requests for comment. <\/p>\n
The Consumer Brands Assn., a trade organization that represents many of the companies named in the suit, said in a statement that there is no universal scientific definition of ultra-processed foods. <\/p>\n
Manufacturers are continuing to introduce new products with increased protein and fiber, lower sugar and sodium and no synthetic color additives, said Sarah Gallo, senior vice president of product policy, in a media statement. <\/p>\n
\u201cAttempting 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,\u201d Gallo said. \u201cCompanies 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.\u201d <\/p>\n
The share of ultra-processed foods on grocery store shelves increased dramatically in the 1980s and 1990s. Now, about 70% of the U.S. food supply is ultra-processed fare, most of which has ample added ingredients like sugar, salt, fat and artificial colors or preservatives. Products like frozen meals, soft drinks, hot dogs, packaged cookies, cakes and salty snacks like chips fall into this category, according to researchers.<\/p>\n
But not all ultra-processed food is inherently unhealthy, according to the Yale School of Public Health, which notes that some foods that fall into that category like whole-grain breads and yogurts are associated with a lower risk of chronic diseases.<\/p>\n
In the lawsuit, San Francisco argues that the variety of products found in grocery stores today \u201cgive the illusion of consumer choice\u201d but Americans are largely forced to make their selections between \u201cdifferent configurations of chemicals that are making them sick,\u201d according to the city\u2019s news release.<\/p>\n
Ultra-processed foods are typically more affordable than nonprocessed fare, but Chiu argued during the news conference that consuming highly processed products comes with its own costs. Research has linked<\/a> diets high in ultra-processed foods to a variety of health conditions<\/a> including obesity, type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease and mental health disorders. <\/p>\n In 2024, researchers at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health focused on the health consequences of specific types of ultra-processed foods, collecting data from participants every four years for more than three decades. The study<\/a> found that participants who ate the most ultra-processed food of any kind faced a 4% higher risk of all-cause mortality than those who ate the least ultra-processed food. <\/p>\n However, experts at UC Davis have<\/a> noted that the vast majority of research on ultra-processed foods has been observational, meaning people are asked to report what they eat and scientists take that information and use statistical analysis to explore associations with various health outcomes. A majority of studies have skewed heavily in the direction of food frequency, or how often people are consuming certain items.<\/p>\n \u201cThe only thing we actually know about ultra-processed foods is that, when given the option to eat them, they\u2019re so tasty and it\u2019s so easy to overeat them that you end up eating more calories than you normally would, and you end up gaining weight as a result,\u201d said Angela Zivkovic, professor of nutrition at UC Davis, based on her research<\/a>.<\/p>\n This has made it more difficult to tie the cause of specific health ailments to certain foods, said Diana Winters, deputy director of the Resnick Center for Food Law and Policy at UCLA.<\/p>\n \u201cIt\u2019s big because for years, I think people have talked about the idea of going after food companies similar to the way governments and individuals went after tobacco companies, but the worry was that we didn\u2019t have the data to show the causation,\u201d Winters said.<\/p>\n However, over the years, \u201cresearch has shown more and more that the specific processing is causing these diet-related diseases,\u201d Winters said. \u201cThe idea that we now have the data to show these specific health effects to the point of showing it in court is a turning point.\u201d <\/p>\n Ultra-processed foods are high in sodium, added sugar, saturated fats and chemicals that are designed to make the food easy and pleasurable to eat and overeat, Chiu said. He said his own mother used to bribe him with Pringles to get him to take swim lessons. \u201cTo this day, I love my Pringles, but they are designed to be highly addictive,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n Confronting additives in foods and highly processed fare has proven to be a rare bipartisan issue. U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has been critical of ultra-processed foods as part of his Make America Healthy Again agenda. In California, Gov. Gavin Newsom in October signed a first-in-the-nation law to remove ultra-processed foods from school lunches.<\/a> <\/p>\n