San Francisco Sues Major Manufacturers Over Ultra-Processed Foods
Editors carefully fact-check all Consumer Notice, LLC content for accuracy and quality.
Consumer Notice, LLC has a stringent fact-checking process. It starts with our strict sourcing guidelines.
We only gather information from credible sources. This includes peer-reviewed medical journals, reputable media outlets, government reports, court records and interviews with qualified experts.
San Francisco has filed a lawsuit against 10 of the country’s largest food manufacturers, claiming the companies engineered ultra-processed foods to be easy to overeat and potentially harmful to long-term health.
The city argues that these products contribute to rising rates of chronic diseases such as diabetes and heart disease, which increase public health spending. The lawsuit is the first of its kind involving ultra-processed food makers.
A separate, earlier lawsuit brought by a teenager who said he developed Type 2 diabetes and fatty liver disease from eating ultra-processed foods was dismissed this fall. The judge ruled the complaint didn’t show a clear link between his illnesses and specific products.
The latest lawsuit could renew interest in filing personal injury lawsuits against UPF makers.
What the Lawsuit Claims
San Francisco’s 62-page complaint says major manufacturers knowingly created foods that are easy to overeat, heavily marketed them to children and ignored research linking these products to long-term health risks.
The defendants include The Kraft Heinz Company, Mondelez International, Post Holdings, The Coca-Cola Company, PepsiCo, General Mills, Nestlé USA, Kellogg, Mars Incorporated and Conagra Brands.
In a press release announcing the lawsuit, the city said the concern is not just about sugar, salt or fat content. It stated that ultra-processed foods “cause unique health risks” because heavy processing changes the physical and chemical structure of food and how the body digests it.
“San Francisco families deserve to know what’s in their food,” said San Francisco Mayor Daniel Lurie in a press release. “We’re not going to let our residents be misled about the products in our grocery stores. We are going to stand up for public health and give parents the information they need to keep themselves and their kids safe and healthy.”
The complaint also claims that UPF consumption has added to the cost of treating chronic conditions.
Diseases such as diabetes and heart disease place billions of dollars in annual expenses on public programs, including Medi-Cal.
What Are Ultra-Processed Foods?
Ultra-processed foods, often called UPFs, are products made using industrial methods that break down whole foods and rebuild them with additives such as emulsifiers, flavor enhancers and artificial sweeteners. These foods typically can’t be made in a home kitchen.
Examples of UPFs include candies, chips, processed meats, soda, energy drinks, boxed macaroni and cheese, breakfast cereals and other packaged convenience foods.
According to the NOVA classification system, ultra-processed foods are considered industrial formulations made from sugars, oils, starches and additives that extend shelf life, create strong flavors and keep costs low.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration notes that studies have linked high consumption of ultra-processed foods with chronic diseases such as cardiovascular disease, obesity and cancer. Research shows that about 70% of the U.S. food supply consists of UPFs, and children receive more than 60% of their calories from these products.
Why the Case Matters to Consumers
San Francisco’s lawsuit claims the companies violated California’s Unfair Competition Law and public nuisance statute by engaging in deceptive or misleading marketing practices related to ultra-processed foods.
If successful, the case could require manufacturers to change how these products are marketed and could influence how other states and cities approach concerns about UPFs.
The lawsuit also asks the court to require companies to pay civil penalties and restitution to help offset public health costs.
“This litigation is about more than accountability, it’s about giving San Francisco the tools to protect its residents for generations to come,” said Jennie Lee Anderson, a lawyer representing San Francisco in the lawsuit. “By challenging these corporate practices, we’re helping to establish a legal framework that other cities can use to safeguard their communities.”
