California Takes Legal Action Against Ultra-Processed Food Companies

Growers and producers across the country could have reason to pay attention to a landmark lawsuit filed by the City of San Francisco against some of the nation’s largest food manufacturers, accusing them of knowingly producing and marketing ultra-processed foods (UPFs) that contribute to a growing public-health crisis.

While the fate of the lawsuit is uncertain and could take years to resolve, it could lead to greater demand for whole foods and minimally processed foods.

Perhaps, it could also incent major companies to change their processes by reducing the amount of salt, sugar, or other additives in their products. However, the lawsuit does not seek to ban ultra-processed foods, but it does aim to change how the food companies market their products.

The suit targets 10 companies:

• Kraft Heinz Company

• Mondelez International

• Post Holdings

• The Coca-Cola Company

• PepsiCo

• General Mills

• Nestlé USA

• Kellogg Company

• Mars, Incorporated

• Conagra Brands

Companies Sued Because of Additives to Foods

The lawsuit contends that the 10 food companies engaged in “unfair and deceptive acts” in the way they market their products. Chips, sodas, frozen meals, cereal, and ready-to-eat snacks — which are often staples in American consumers’ diets and provide a substantial supply of people’s daily caloric intake – are often full of additives. But the companies portray the products as normal food, the lawsuit laid out.

Ultra-processed foods are “designed to stimulate cravings and encourage overconsumption,” the lawsuit stated. And because of that, those foods lead to the country’s crisis in chronic diseases like type-2 diabetes, heart disease, liver disease, certain cancers, and mental-health conditions.

California UPF Law

In October, California lawmakers passed a first-in-the-nation law, which set a timeline to phase out certain ultra-processed foods from school lunches by 2035. Schools are required to begin the transition next year. Although, some schools have already begun, according to this story by the New York Post. 

Ultra-Processed Foods Lawsuit Similar to Big Tobacco Lawsuit

San Francisco City Attorney David Chiu compared the case to historic lawsuits against the nation’s big tobacco companies in the late 1990s and early 2000s. The companies ultimately paid $206 billion to settle lawsuits following concerns that they deceived smokers about the health risks of cigarettes.

Chiu claims that some of the companies took their business practices from tobacco products and put them into practice in the food industry.

“Ultra processed food is really food. That's not food. It's not found in nature,” Chiu told CBS News. “It's created by an industry that has designed all these new chemicals. And what ultra-processed foods are…is they combine artificial chemicals with industrialized processes.”

Chiu argues that the process violates California law. “The definition under California law essentially says if a food has any of those chemicals and if it is high in fat or sugar or salt, it's considered ultra-processed food,” he said.

Food Industry Responds to Ultra-Processed Food Lawsuit

The association that represents food companies responded to the California lawsuit and said that the country lacks a clear definition for ultra-processed foods.

“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,” Consumer Brands Association Senior Vice President of Product Policy Sarah Gallo said in a statement.

Gallo added that, “Companies 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.”

California Ultra-Processed Foods Lawsuit Impact on Agriculture

For those in agriculture and food production, the lawsuit could signal a shift in how processed foods are regulated, marketed, and governed. That could potentially open new markets for fresh, minimally processed, and locally produced foods as consumers and policymakers respond to concerns about health, transparency, and corporate responsibility.

There might be additional opportunities for farmers, local cooperatives, and smaller-scale producers to supply fresh produce, minimally processed items, and scratch-cooked options. This aligns with broader efforts — such as farm-to-school initiatives — to provide healthier meals and support local agriculture.

RELATED: This Kentucky farmer lost what had been an opportunity to provide meat and produce for schools in his community. Here is what the community did to help him overcome the loss.