🔗 Share this article

In a first-of-its-kind legal move, San Francisco is set to file what is being called the country's inaugural government lawsuit against major food manufacturers over UPFs. The city contends that local governments have been absorbing the substantial costs of managing health conditions linked to the population-wide eating of these companies' products.

The Core Argument of the Case

The city's filing, to be submitted in state court, names ten major corporations responsible for producing some of the America's favorite food and beverage items. This roster reportedly features everything from chicken nuggets and pre-made pizzas to crisps and sweetened morning cereals. Notably, the case also covers products like certain breads and granola bars that are often promoted as "nutritious" options.

The lawsuit charges these companies of perpetrating "unfair and deceptive acts" in their promotion and distribution. It contends that these tactics breach state laws governing deceptive trade and public nuisance. A fundamental assertion is that the manufacturers understood their products were linked to illness but opted for profit over safety.

"It makes me sick that generations of kids and parents are being duped and buying food that's hardly food at all," remarked the city's top legal official.

Examining Highly Manufactured Foods

UPFs are formulated using factory methods and contain ingredients not commonly used in a home kitchen. These involve preservatives, taste boosters, synthetic dyes, and binding agents, with little to no unprocessed food content.

Research suggests that a dominant majority of the food available in the U.S. is made up of foods commonly considered ultra-processed. Alarmingly, kids are estimated to get over 60% of their daily calories from such foods.

The Established Dangers

A comprehensive global study, issued recently, found that eating ultra-processed foods is linked to harm in every major organ system of the human body. The study linked these foods with an higher likelihood of a multiple major illnesses, such as:

• Cancer
• Excessive weight gain
• Adult-onset diabetes
• Mental health struggles
• Cardiovascular illness
• Brain function deterioration

The researchers of that study concluded that the proliferation of UPFs is being propelled by global corporations, not individual dietary choices. They described UPFs as a leading cause of a worldwide epidemic of chronic illness linked to diet, with manufacturers prioritizing profit ahead of safety.

Ideological Alignment on a Specific Topic

This legal action marks a unusual instance of agreement between the politically progressive city of San Francisco and the national leadership. The nation's top health official has publicly criticized ultra-processed foods, urging Americans to limit their consumption on products with excess sugar, sodium, unhealthy fats, dyes, and chemical preservatives as part of a "public health initiative" mission.

The city attorney emphasized that while he diverges with the administration on numerous other scientific issues, the evidence on ultra-processed foods is "clear-cut." He added, "Many the views of this administration are unscientific, but this is an exception. Sometimes is right twice a day."

Implicated Companies and Legal Precedent

The companies listed in the legal filing allegedly include major players 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 move is informed by other regulatory steps in California. Earlier this year, the state enacted a law that became the first in the U.S. to establish a legal definition of ultra-processed foods, laying a foundation for removing them from schools. The state has also banned certain chemicals, including artificial colors linked to health and behavior issues in children, within school meals.

The city attorney's office has a track record in winning cases against large corporations on public health matters, including cases against tobacco companies, lead paint manufacturers, and opioid manufacturers.

The legal challenge will seek monetary restitution for the financial burden that local governments shoulder for addressing the health of individuals whose wellness has been compromised by the dietary reliance of UPFs.