San Francisco Sues Major Food Companies Over Ultra-Processed Products

San Francisco Sues Major Food Companies Over Ultra-Processed Products

City claims companies used tactics similar to Big Tobacco

SAN FRANCISCO — The city and county of San Francisco has filed a sweeping lawsuit against some of the country’s largest food manufacturers, accusing them of knowingly promoting ultra-processed foods that officials say have harmed public health for decades.

Filing Targets “Big Food” Companies

City Attorney David Chiu announced the lawsuit on Dec. 2 in San Francisco County Superior Court. The complaint, filed on behalf of the people of California, names major producers and sellers, including Kraft Heinz, Mondelez International, Post Holdings, Coca-Cola, Pepsico, General Mills, Nestle USA, Kellanova, WK Kellogg Co., Mars Inc., and Conagra Brands.

San Francisco is joined in the action by prominent plaintiffs’ firms such as Morgan & Morgan, DiCello Levitt, and Andrus Anderson. The suit alleges these companies used “deceitful tactics” to persuade consumers — especially children and people in Black and Latino communities — to eat large amounts of ultra-processed foods, or UPFs, which the city says provide little nutrition and contribute to rising rates of diabetes, obesity, and liver and kidney disease.

The lawsuit compares the companies’ marketing to strategies once used by tobacco manufacturers, claiming the industry acted with “the singular goal of making UPF a staple of the American diet” despite knowing the harm such foods would cause.

Claims of Public Nuisance and Addiction

According to the complaint, the alleged marketing practices created “addictions” that fueled a public health crisis and strained public resources. The city is seeking unspecified sums to “abate the public nuisance” and impose statewide civil penalties under California law.

The filing also notes that lawyers intend for the case to serve as a model for similar actions nationwide. Plaintiffs’ attorney Jennie Lee Anderson said the goal is to “establish a legal framework that other cities can use to safeguard their communities.”

Trial lawyers stand to recover significant fees if such cases result in large settlements. Under the 1998 master tobacco settlement, for example, lawyers received more than $13 billion — a figure that would exceed $25 billion in today’s dollars. Tobacco companies have paid more than $368 billion over 25 years.

Industry Pushback

Food manufacturers, through the Consumer Brands Association, rejected the allegations. Senior Vice President Sarah Gallo said companies support healthier choices and have introduced products with increased protein and fiber and reduced sugars and sodium. She added that there is “no agreed upon scientific definition of ultra-processed foods,” and warned that labeling foods as unhealthy solely because they are processed “misleads consumers and exacerbates health disparities.”

The association also said companies comply with FDA safety standards and that processing allows for affordable and shelf-stable foods. In blog posts, the group’s policy staff criticized claims like those in San Francisco’s lawsuit as lacking “common sense” and failing to consider the dietary needs and budgets of many consumers.

The lawsuit comes amid growing scrutiny of the food industry. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration, under Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, has recently examined how to define “ultra processed food,” prompting concern from manufacturers about potential limits on consumer choice.

A similar suit brought by Morgan & Morgan in Philadelphia was dismissed earlier this year. The judge found the complaint “woefully deficient” for failing to link specific products to the plaintiff’s illnesses. Still, firms have continued to seek clients for new claims.

Chiu said the San Francisco lawsuit responds to an industry that “engineered a public health crisis” and must take responsibility. Food companies have not yet filed responses in court.