🔗 Share this article

In a historic legal move, San Francisco is set to file what is being called the country's inaugural government lawsuit against major food manufacturers regarding UPFs. The city asserts that local governments have been absorbing the significant costs of treating diseases linked to the broad public intake of these manufactured goods.

The Core Argument of the Legal Challenge

The city's lawsuit, to be submitted in superior court, names ten major corporations responsible for manufacturing some of the nation's top-selling food and beverage items. This group reportedly includes everything from breaded chicken pieces and frozen pizzas to crisps and sweetened morning cereals. Notably, the action also includes products like certain breads and snack bars that are often promoted as "healthy" options.

The legal complaint alleges these companies of perpetrating "misleading and unlawful practices" in their promotion and distribution. It contends that these actions contravene state laws concerning deceptive trade and public nuisance. A central claim is that the companies were aware their products posed health risks but opted for profit over safety.

"I am appalled that generations of kids and parents are being deceived and buying food that's hardly food at all," said the city's top legal official.

Defining Highly Manufactured Foods

Ultra-processed foods are formulated using complex procedures and contain ingredients not commonly used in a domestic kitchen. These involve preservatives, taste boosters, artificial colors, and binding agents, with little to no whole food content.

Research estimates that over seventy percent of the food available in the U.S. is made up of foods typically classified as ultra-processed. Alarmingly, children are estimated to get over 60% of their caloric intake from these products.

The Proven Health Risks

A comprehensive global study, released recently, found that intake of these products is linked to harm in each primary system of the body. The analysis tied these foods with an increased risk of a numerous chronic diseases, encompassing:

• Various cancers
• Excessive weight gain
• Type 2 diabetes
• Depression
• Cardiovascular illness
• Brain function deterioration

The researchers of that review concluded that the rise of UPFs is being propelled by large food conglomerates, not individual dietary choices. They described UPFs as a leading cause of a pandemic of long-term health conditions linked to diet, with corporations putting profit first above all else.

Political Alignment on a Rare Issue

This legal action marks a atypical point of alignment between the liberal city of San Francisco and the current federal administration. The nation's top health official has publicly criticized ultra-processed foods, advising Americans to limit their consumption on products with added sugar, sodium, fat, artificial colors, and preservatives as part of a "Make America Healthy Again" mission.

The city attorney noted that while he diverges with the administration on numerous other scientific issues, the evidence on ultra-processed foods is "indisputable." He commented, "Many the perspectives of this administration are not backed by science, but this is an exception. As the saying goes is right twice a day."

Named Defendants and Past Actions

The defendants named in the lawsuit apparently 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 public health measures in California. Earlier this year, the state passed a cross-party legislation that became the first in the U.S. to establish a legal definition of ultra-processed foods, setting the stage for removing them from schools. The state has also outlawed certain chemicals, including artificial colors linked to health and behavior issues in children, within school meals.

The city attorney's office possesses a history in winning cases against large corporations on wellness concerns, including suits against cigarette manufacturers, lead paint manufacturers, and pharmaceutical firms.

The case will seek unspecified damages for the costs that local governments shoulder for caring for citizens whose conditions have been exacerbated by the long-term consumption of UPFs.