SAN FRANCISCO — The city of San Francisco filed a groundbreaking lawsuit on Tuesday against 10 major food companies, accusing them of marketing and selling ultraprocessed foods that are harmful to public health and designed to be addictive.
The suit, lodged in San Francisco County Superior Court, targets giants in the food industry including Kraft Heinz Company, Mondelez International, Post Holdings, The Coca-Cola Company, PepsiCo, General Mills, Nestle USA, Kellogg, Mars Incorporated and ConAgra Brands. City Attorney David Chiu announced the action during a news conference Tuesday morning, emphasizing the severe health consequences linked to these products.
"We have reached a tipping point in the scientific research about the harm of these products," Chiu said. He further noted that "these products in our diets are deeply linked to serious health conditions, imposing enormous costs on millions of Americans and cities and states across our country."
Ultraprocessed foods, as defined in the lawsuit, encompass items such as flavored chips, sugary granola bars and sodas. These products often contain synthetic compounds, preservatives and additives, and are typically high in saturated fat, sodium or sugar. According to research cited in the suit, consumption of such foods has been associated with increased risks of obesity, diabetes, cardiovascular disease and even early death.
The complaint alleges that the companies were aware their products were "dangerous for human consumption" and employed "deceitful tactics" to promote and distribute them. This has allegedly fueled a public health crisis, burdening governments with substantial medical expenses related to diet-induced illnesses.
San Francisco's move marks the first known legal effort by a U.S. city to hold food conglomerates accountable for the proliferation and health risks of ultraprocessed foods. The lawsuit seeks to address what officials describe as a nationwide epidemic, with the city's progressive stance on public health issues playing a role in its decision to pursue the case.
In response to inquiries from NBC News, none of the 10 companies immediately provided comments. However, Sarah Gallo, senior vice president of product policy at the Consumer Brands Association — a trade group representing large food and beverage brands — issued a statement defending the industry.
"Makers of America’s trusted household brands support Americans in making healthier choices and enhancing product transparency," Gallo wrote. "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."
Gallo added that companies comply with "rigorous evidence-based safety standards established by the FDA to deliver safe, affordable and convenient products that consumers depend on every day." She stressed that "Americans deserve facts based on sound science in order to make the best choices for their health."
The lawsuit arrives amid growing bipartisan scrutiny of ultraprocessed foods. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has made combating these products a cornerstone of his "Make America Healthy Again" agenda, including plans to eliminate artificial food dyes from the U.S. food supply within the next year.
Laura Schmidt, a professor at the Institute for Health Policy Studies at the University of California, San Francisco, highlighted this unusual political alignment in an interview. "For whatever reason, there is an alignment," she said, referring to pushback from both sides of the aisle. "This is an area that was not really a political issue."
Schmidt, who has studied childhood diabetes for decades, described the situation as "watching a train wreck in slow motion." She pointed to rising rates of childhood diabetes, fatty liver disease and obesity, attributing them to flaws in the food supply. "We've known for a long time there was something very wrong with this part of the food supply," she said.
Schmidt challenged the trade association's claim of no scientific definition for ultraprocessed foods, arguing that established criteria exist. She drew parallels to past litigation against the tobacco industry, which ultimately forced accountability. "Anytime I see public actors like the city of San Francisco or state level attorneys interested in litigation, I'm encouraged, because that's how we got the attention of the tobacco companies back in the 1990s," she said.
Historical ties between tobacco and food industries add another layer of context. In the 1980s, tobacco conglomerates like Philip Morris acquired food companies, including Kraft Foods in 1988, before spinning them off in 2007. This overlap underscores long-standing concerns about corporate strategies in consumer products.
Barry Popkin, a professor of nutrition at the University of North Carolina, provided historical perspective on the rise of ultraprocessed foods. He explained that these items began infiltrating the U.S. market in the 1980s and have since become staples. "About 75% to 80% of what children eat comes from these ultraprocessed foods, and 55% to 60% of what adults consume come from them," Popkin said.
Popkin contrasted modern diets with those from the World War II era and earlier decades, noting a dramatic shift. Researchers have focused on the health impacts of ultraprocessed foods for the past 10 to 15 years, he added.
Recent scientific backing bolsters the lawsuit's claims. Last month, The Lancet published a comprehensive review evaluating hundreds of studies and national food survey data. The authors concluded that ultraprocessed foods are globally worsening diets, promoting overeating and exposing consumers to toxins, thereby contributing to a surge in chronic diseases.
Popkin contributed to some of the research featured in The Lancet. "We’re unhealthy. The diet has a huge amount to do with that," he said. "We stopped smoking, we’ve got cholesterol drugs, we’ve got drugs to handle heart disease, hypertension and so forth, but the food is killing us." He praised the journal's decision to highlight the issue, calling it "the most reputable, the most cited of all the medical journals out there."
The broader implications of San Francisco's lawsuit could extend far beyond the city. If successful, it might inspire similar actions in other municipalities and states, potentially reshaping how food companies formulate, market and sell their products. Legal experts anticipate a lengthy battle, given the defendants' resources and the novel nature of the claims.
For now, the case underscores a pivotal moment in public health advocacy. As Chiu put it during the news conference, the suit aims to curb the "enormous costs" inflicted on society. Whether it will prompt industry changes or face dismissal remains to be seen, but it has already spotlighted the pervasive role of ultraprocessed foods in American life.
— Emily Chen, The Appleton Times