​​San Francisco sues food giants for marketing harmful ultra-processed products

December 5, 2025
Healthcaretoday, Ultra processed foods, Public health, Food industry, Chronic disease, Nutrition policy, Food regulation, Health law, Consumer protection, Kraft Heinz, Mondelez, Coca Cola, Obesity crisis, Diabetes prevention, Food marketing, Healthy eating, food coloring, FDA Reform,
One of the first US government lawsuits targets food giants including Kraft Heinz, Mondelez International, and Coca-Cola, accusing them of driving ultra-processed products linked to rising chronic diseases nationwide. PHOTO: BBC
San Francisco has launched a groundbreaking legal battle against ten of the world’s largest food manufacturers, accusing the makers of popular ultra-processed products of knowingly contributing to a surge in chronic illnesses. According to the original report by the BBC, city officials argue that these companies have employed tactics reminiscent of the tobacco industry—manipulating consumer behaviours, downplaying health risks, and ultimately shifting the burden of healthcare costs to local governments.

Filed on Tuesday in San Francisco Superior Court, the lawsuit marks one of the first government-led actions in the United States aimed directly at the marketing and proliferation of ultra-processed foods. The defendants include major global firms such as Kraft Heinz, Mondelez International, and Coca-Cola—companies responsible for producing grocery staples ranging from cookies, crackers, and sweets to cereals and granola bars.

City Attorney David Chiu stated in an official release that the industry has “engineered a public health crisis” and benefited financially while leaving communities to deal with the devastating consequences. His remarks underscore the city’s key contention: that these corporations intentionally designed and marketed foods high in additives, sugars, and other ingredients linked to serious diseases, all while obscuring risks and promoting these products as acceptable everyday choices.

Claims of deceptive practices and addictive engineering
The complaint alleges that leading food manufacturers have progressively engineered their products to be more addictive—packed with combinations of salt, sugar, fat, artificial flavours, and texturizers that stimulate reward pathways in the brain. According to San Francisco officials, this mirrors the strategy once used by tobacco companies, who were accused of deliberately manipulating the addictiveness of cigarettes.

The lawsuit asserts that the companies not only understood the health impacts of long-term consumption but intentionally misrepresented their products through marketing, packaging, and nutritional framing. This includes claims related to “better-for-you” branding, misleading health-oriented language, and the strategic placement of products to influence purchase behavior, especially among children and vulnerable communities.

Despite the allegations, Kraft Heinz, Mondelez, Coca-Cola, and the other companies named in the suit did not immediately respond to requests for comment, the BBC reported.

Industry pushback: ‘No agreed scientific definition’
In response to the lawsuit, industry group Consumer Brands Association defended food manufacturers, arguing that policymakers and researchers have yet to agree on what exactly constitutes an “ultra-processed” food. Sarah Gallo, the association’s senior vice president of product policy, said in a statement that classifying foods as unhealthy solely due to processing oversimplifies complex nutritional science and risks misleading consumers.

She emphasized that nutritional value encompasses more than the degree of processing, stating that demonizing processed foods may worsen health disparities by reducing access to affordable, shelf-stable options. Gallo also highlighted ongoing efforts by food and beverage companies to reformulate products—adding more protein and fibre, lowering sugar and sodium, and removing synthetic colours.

Public health concerns: A rising tide of chronic disease
The lawsuit points to mounting scientific and epidemiological evidence that the widespread availability of ultra-processed foods has coincided with dramatic increases in obesity, type 2 diabetes, heart disease, certain cancers, and other chronic illnesses. According to San Francisco officials, these conditions collectively account for enormous healthcare expenditures—costs shouldered disproportionately by local and state governments.

“This case is about food products with hidden health harms,” the complaint states, arguing that consumers have been kept in the dark about the long-term consequences of diets dominated by highly processed items.

The city seeks both monetary penalties and a statewide injunction requiring food companies to change their “deceptive” marketing tactics. If successful, the case could set a precedent that reshapes food regulation, marketing practices, and consumer transparency throughout California and potentially the country.

Political oddity: Ultra-processed foods unite divided camp
One surprising element highlighted in the BBC report is that concerns about ultra-processed foods have emerged as a rare point of agreement between left-leaning officials and the Trump administration, despite their deep ideological divides. Both have expressed alarm over the health effects linked to artificial additives, excessive sugars, and the chemicals found in many packaged foods.

US Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a prominent figure in the current administration, has made food safety and nutritional reform central to his “Make America Healthy Again” movement. Kennedy has campaigned for the removal of ingredients such as corn syrup, artificial dyes, and seed oils from widely sold products, drawing connections between these additives and long-term health problems.

In April, Kennedy announced federal plans to ban eight commonly used artificial food dyes—a move widely praised by consumer advocates and public health experts.

Several food companies have already begun adjusting their formulations in response to growing political and regulatory pressure. Coca-Cola, for instance, agreed earlier this year to use real cane sugar in all its beverages sold in the US, replacing high-fructose corn syrup in some products.

Legal landscape: A developing frontier
San Francisco’s lawsuit is the first of its kind filed by a government body targeting food companies for allegedly manipulating consumers through intentional marketing of ultra-processed items. However, it is not the first legal attempt to link such foods to individual health outcomes.

Earlier this year, a Pennsylvania judge dismissed a lawsuit brought by an individual plaintiff who claimed that regular consumption of ultra-processed foods contributed to his diagnoses of diabetes and liver disease. The judge ruled that the claims lacked sufficient legal basis to establish direct causation, highlighting the difficulty of connecting specific dietary patterns to individual medical conditions in a court of law.

San Francisco officials believe their case stands on firmer ground because it focuses not on individual harm but on population-level public health consequences and financial burdens borne by governments. The city frames the issue as a systemic crisis created by decades of aggressive product engineering, strategic marketing, and regulatory loopholes.

Potential national implications
If the lawsuit progresses, it could spark a new wave of government actions challenging the processed food industry. Legal experts have drawn parallels to early tobacco litigation, which also began with small-scale suits before expanding into major settlements and sweeping public health reforms.

Public health advocates say the case could encourage broader conversations about food system transparency, marketing standards, and the ethical obligations of companies that profit from addictive, low-nutrient products.

At the same time, the food industry and its lobby groups warn that legal actions based on the concept of “ultra-processing” may be premature given scientific debates over definitions and classifications. Critics argue that overly broad regulations could restrict consumer choice, burden manufacturers, and fail to address the root causes of poor diet quality, such as socioeconomic inequality.

What comes next
San Francisco’s legal team is expected to seek discovery from major food companies, which could reveal internal documents related to product formulation, marketing strategies, and risk assessments. Such disclosures played a pivotal role in past legal battles involving tobacco, opioids, and other industries accused of concealing harm.

Meanwhile, public attention continues to grow around ultra-processed foods, especially as research links them not only to chronic diseases but also to mental health issues, inflammatory conditions, and shorter lifespan. The outcome of this case may influence future policy development, nutritional guidelines, and corporate accountability standards.

For now, the lawsuit marks a bold step by a major US city aiming to hold the food industry responsible for what it describes as decades of unchecked marketing and product design that have profoundly shaped American diets.

EXPLORE FURTHER