Key takeaways:
- San Francisco has filed a landmark lawsuit accusing major food companies of engineering and heavily marketing ultra processed foods (UPFs) that contribute to chronic disease.
- The city argues the cumulative impact of these products creates a public health and financial burden, shifting costs onto local systems.
- The case signals growing political and regulatory pressure on bakery and snack manufacturers to be more transparent and proactive about formulation and marketing.
San Francisco has thrown a legal curveball at 10 of the country’s best-known food companies, accusing them of building a diet culture that’s pushed far too many people toward chronic disease.
The lawsuit landed with very little warning. It’s the first move of its kind from a US city, and the language inside it suggests the gloves aren’t coming back on anytime soon.
The filing names Kellogg, General Mills, PepsiCo, Mondelez, Kraft Heinz, Coca-Cola, Nestlé, Post, Mars and Conagra – a sweep of companies that have shaped mainstream American eating for decades. City attorney David Chiu argues these companies didn’t just sell snacks and cereals; they helped define how and what people eat, thanks to products he says are designed to be eaten fast and in large amounts. He points to the way these foods turn into habits, especially in neighborhoods where healthier choices require more time, money or just plain luck.
Chiu’s drawn parallels to the behavioral tactics that once defined tobacco marketing – not to make a one-to-one comparison, but to underline the point that the food environment isn’t accidental. It’s built. And, in the city’s view, it’s become skewed enough to contribute to rising rates of diabetes, heart disease and other conditions the local health system then has to handle.
The Consumer Brands Association pushed back almost immediately, saying the phrase ‘ultra-processed’ is too vague to anchor a lawsuit. It also pointed to the familiar list of improvements – including less sugar and fewer artificial colors – although San Francisco’s complaint makes it clear the city doesn’t see those tweaks as a real turnaround.
A lawsuit that zooms out instead of in
Previous food lawsuits usually focused on an individual consumer and a specific product. San Francisco’s trying something different: the argument being that the system – the sheer availability and marketing power behind these foods – is creating a measurable public-health and financial burden.
The city isn’t trying to pull products off shelves. Instead, it wants a judge to require changes to how these foods are marketed and to impose financial penalties that match the cost of diet-related disease. If the court lets this strategy move forward, it wouldn’t be surprising if other cities decide to take a similar shot.
One reason this lawsuit feels like it landed with such force is because it arrives at a moment when UPFs are already under the microscope. Health Secretary Robert F Kennedy Jr. has been vocal about additives and dyes he wants out of processed foods. California’s already begun tightening school meal standards to reduce exposure to certain items.
And then there’s the research. While scientists are careful to point out that much of it is observational, the pattern that shows up again and again is pretty hard to ignore: people tend to eat UPFs in larger portions. They’re convenient, tasty, consistent – which is exactly why they sell and exactly why researchers keep linking them to long-term health problems.
Meanwhile, consumers are becoming tougher to convince. Ingredient lists are getting more attention than they used to. Discussions about front-of-pack warnings, once seen as too heavy-handed for the US, are now taken seriously in policy circles.
What this means for bakery and snacks
The bakery and snacks sector isn’t named directly, but the spotlight still falls nearby. When people argue about UPFs, many picture cookies, chips, sweet snacks or bars long before they picture frozen meals or fizzy beverages. Fair or not, that’s the instinctive association and it’s something regulators notice.
A lot of companies in this space have been tidying up recipes for years. Sodium is down, some colors have been dropped altogether and ingredient lists are cleaner than they used to be. Retailers have pushed for this and consumers usually like seeing it. But if lawsuits like San Francisco’s pick up steam, those changes will need to be communicated more clearly and backed up more confidently.
People don’t expect their afternoon snack to turn into a health seminar. They do, however, want a straight answer about what they’re putting into their bodies. Brands that explain their choices plainly – whether it’s a preservative, a flavoring step or a reformulation – tend to build more trust than those keeping things vague.
San Francisco’s case has a long road ahead and a fair amount could be reshaped or struck down along the way. But it does mark a line in the sand and something brands will need to watch closely.
