🔗 Share this article

In a historic legal move, San Francisco is initiating what is being called the nation's first government lawsuit taking aim at major food manufacturers regarding ultra-processed foods. The city contends that local governments have been absorbing the enormous costs of addressing illnesses linked to the widespread public consumption of these corporate offerings.

The Primary Claim of the Lawsuit

The city's lawsuit, to be filed in superior court, targets ten large companies responsible for producing some of the America's favorite food and beverage items. This roster reportedly features everything from breaded chicken pieces and pre-made pizzas to potato chips and sugary breakfast cereals. Notably, the case also covers products like certain breads and granola bars that are often advertised as "healthy" options.

The filing charges these companies of carrying out "misleading and unlawful practices" in their marketing and sales. It states that these actions violate state laws governing unfair competition and community harm. A fundamental assertion is that the companies were aware their products were linked to illness but continued marketing them.

"I am appalled that generations of kids and parents are being deceived and buying food that's not food," said the city's top legal official.

Defining UPFs

These industrially created products are formulated using industrial processes and contain components not commonly used in a domestic kitchen. These include preservatives, taste boosters, artificial colors, and binding agents, with virtually zero whole food content.

Research suggests that a dominant majority of the American diet is comprised of foods typically classified as ultra-processed. Concerningly, young people are estimated to get the majority of their caloric intake from UPFs.

The Documented Health Risks

A massive global scientific review, released recently, found that consumption of UPFs is linked to harm in each primary system of the human body. The study associated these foods with an elevated risk of a multiple chronic diseases, encompassing:

• Cancer
• Excessive weight gain
• Type 2 diabetes
• Mental health struggles
• Heart disease
• Mental decline

The scientists of that review concluded that the proliferation of UPFs is being fueled by global corporations, not personal consumer decisions. They described UPFs as a leading cause of a pandemic of long-term health conditions linked to diet, with corporations putting profit first ahead of safety.

Ideological Agreement on a Specific Topic

This legal action marks a atypical point of agreement between the liberal city of San Francisco and the national leadership. The federal Health and Human Services Secretary has vocally opposed ultra-processed foods, advising Americans to cut back on products with added sugar, salt, fat, artificial colors, and preservatives as part of a "public health initiative" mission.

The city attorney stressed that while he diverges with the administration on other medical subjects, the science on ultra-processed foods is "clear-cut." He added, "Several the views of this administration are unscientific, but this is distinct. Sometimes is right twice a day."

Listed Defendants and Historical Context

The companies implicated by the lawsuit allegedly include industry titans 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 action builds upon other legislative actions in California. Earlier this year, the state passed a cross-party legislation that became the first in the U.S. to provide a statutory definition of ultra-processed foods, creating a framework for restricting them from schools. The state has also banned several additives, including artificial colors linked to health and behavior issues in children, within school meals.

The city attorney's office has previously succeeded in securing victories against major industries on wellness concerns, including cases against cigarette manufacturers, lead paint manufacturers, and pharmaceutical firms.

The case will seek monetary restitution for the costs that municipalities bear for addressing the health of individuals whose health has been harmed by the regular intake of UPFs.