The city of San Francisco is suing four Chicago-based food giants, as well as other major snack food makers, for manufacturing addictive ultra-processed foods and knowingly sickening consumers.
The lawsuit, filed Tuesday by San Francisco City Attorney David Chiu in San Francisco Superior Court, names leading manufacturers such as Chicago’s Kraft Heinz, Mondelez International, Kellanova and Conagra Brands, as well as Post Holdings, Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, General Mills, Nestle USA, Kellogg and Mars.
“Our reliance on ultra-processed foods is decades in the making, and we are not going to be able to reverse that overnight,” Chiu said, during a news conference. “This lawsuit should be the beginning of how we ensure accountability.”
Chiu — who stood near a table filled with snacks such as Mondelez’s Oreos and Kraft Heinz’s Lunchables brand — said companies’ products are linked to “serious health conditions and impose enormous costs on millions of Americans.”
Kraft Heinz, Mondelez, Kellanova and Conagra didn’t respond to requests for comment.
“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 partner at Andrus Anderson, one of the law firms working with San Francisco on the suit. “By challenging these corporate practices, we’re helping to establish a legal framework that other cities can use to safeguard their communities.”
The complaint cites a 1999 meeting with the CEOs of food companies as evidence of the industry’s knowledge of their products’ harmful effects. Michael Mudd, vice president to the predecessor of Kraft Heinz, had warned industry leaders at the time that “their companies had gone too far in engineering and marketing of ultra-processed foods for maximum consumption,” and the inflicting public health toll would rival that of tobacco, according to the complaint.
Even snacks like Wheat Thins, which are often marketed as healthy by maker Mondelez International, are considered ultra-processed in the lawsuit. The complaint defines ultra-processed foods as chemically modified, using cheap ingredients with additives “such as such as thickeners, emulsifiers, flavor enhancers, or other chemical agents — and also high amounts of saturated fat, sodium, added sugar, or nonnutritive sweeteners.”
The Consumer Brands Association, a trade group representing nearly all of the food brands in the lawsuit, said the definition of ultra-processed foods has never been agreed upon.
Sarah Gallo, senior vice president of product policy for the Consumer Brands Association, said in a statement: “The makers of America’s trusted household brands support Americans in making healthier choices and enhancing product transparency. That’s why food and beverage manufacturers continue to introduce new product options that include increased protein and fiber, reduced sugars and sodium, and no synthetic color additives. 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.”
But Chiu argues the science behind the lawsuit is sound, regardless of the exact definition of ultra-processed.
“The industry likes to quibble on whether there’s a definition or not,” Chiu said. “But what we know is that there is an entire category of foods that represents 70% of the American food supply that is making the public sick, and that is what this is about.”
The lawsuit said ultra-processed foods can be addictive in ways similar to tobacco and alcohol. These foods can cause compulsive use, driven by cravings.
The foods have also created a widespread public health crisis that targets people of color and low-income consumers, according to the news release about the suit.
“They took food and made it unrecognizable and harmful to the human body,” Chiu said in the news release. “Recent surveys show Americans want to avoid ultra-processed foods, but we are inundated by them. These companies engineered a public health crisis, they profited handsomely, and now they need to take responsibility for the harm they have caused.”
Chiu linked ultra-processed foods with the rise of diabetes, colorectal cancer and inflammatory bowel diseases.
The lawsuit seeks an injunction on “deceptive marketing,” requiring the companies to change their practices and statewide monetary civil restitution and penalties for violating California’s Unfair Competition Law and public nuisance laws to offset health care costs.