In a unprecedented legal move, San Francisco is preparing to launch what is being called the country's inaugural government lawsuit taking aim at major food manufacturers over ultra-processed foods. The city argues that municipalities have been bearing the significant costs of treating diseases linked to the population-wide eating of these manufactured goods.
The Central Argument of the Case
The city's legal action, to be presented in the court system, implicates ten large companies responsible for producing some of the country's most popular food and beverage items. This roster reportedly encompasses everything from breaded chicken pieces and pre-made pizzas to crisps and sweetened morning cereals. Notably, the suit also includes products like certain breads and snack bars that are often promoted as "nutritious" options.
The lawsuit charges these companies of perpetrating "unfair and deceptive acts" in their marketing and sales. It argues that these tactics breach state laws governing deceptive trade and community harm. A key assertion is that the manufacturers knew their products could make people sick but sold them anyway.
"It makes me sick that families for years are being misled and buying food that's hardly food at all," stated the city's leading attorney.
Defining Highly Manufactured Foods
Ultra-processed foods are formulated using industrial processes and contain ingredients not commonly used in a home kitchen. These involve chemical preservatives, taste boosters, artificial colors, and binding agents, with little to no unprocessed food content.
Scientific analysis suggests that more than 70% of the U.S. food supply is consists of foods typically classified as ultra-processed. Concerningly, kids are estimated to get more than sixty percent of their daily calories from UPFs.
The Established Dangers
A comprehensive global research analysis, published recently, found that consumption of UPFs is linked to harm in all vital bodily systems of the human body. The analysis tied these foods with an higher likelihood of a numerous chronic diseases, including:
- Oncological diseases
- Obesity
- Adult-onset diabetes
- Mental health struggles
- Cardiovascular illness
- Brain function deterioration
The scientists of that study concluded that the explosion of UPFs is being fueled by large food conglomerates, not personal consumer decisions. They described UPFs as a primary driver of a global "chronic disease pandemic" linked to diet, with manufacturers focusing on earnings ahead of safety.
Ideological Alignment on a Rare Issue
This lawsuit signifies a unusual instance of agreement between the politically progressive city of San Francisco and the current federal administration. The federal Health and Human Services Secretary has vocally opposed ultra-processed foods, urging Americans to reduce their intake on products with excess sugar, salt, unhealthy fats, dyes, and chemical preservatives as part of a "national wellness" mission.
The city attorney stressed that while he diverges with the administration on other medical subjects, the science on ultra-processed foods is "unquestionable." He added, "Many the positions of this administration are lacking evidence, but this is an exception. As the saying goes is right twice a day."
Named Corporations and Past Actions
The companies implicated by the lawsuit reportedly 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 lawsuit is informed by other legislative actions in California. Earlier this year, the state passed a law that became the first in the U.S. to legally define of ultra-processed foods, setting the stage for potentially banning them from schools. The state has also banned certain chemicals, including food dyes linked to behavioral difficulties in children, within school meals.
The city attorney's office has previously succeeded in winning cases against major industries on health-related issues, including actions against cigarette manufacturers, paint companies, and opioid manufacturers.
The legal challenge will seek monetary restitution for the financial burden that cities and counties incur for caring for citizens whose wellness has been compromised by the long-term consumption of UPFs.
