Consumer Law
Companies use ‘deceitful tactics’ to market harmful ultra-processed products with ‘addictive nature,’ city’s suit alleges
A lawsuit filed Tuesday by the city of San Francisco alleges that several major food companies used “deceitful tactics it inherited from the Big Tobacco industry” to market harmful ultra-processed foods and to “aggressively sell those products to children.” (Photo from Wikimedia Commons via Flickr.com)
A lawsuit filed Tuesday by the city of San Francisco alleges that several major food companies used “deceitful tactics it inherited from the Big Tobacco industry” to market harmful ultra-processed foods and to “aggressively sell those products to children.”
The suit, filed in San Francisco superior court, alleges that the companies engaged in deceptive and unfair acts that violated California unfair competition law and created a public nuisance, according to a Dec. 2 press release.
Ultra-processed foods make up more than 70% of grocery store products and more than half the diets of people in the United States, the suit said. The “explosion and dramatic increase” in the products “has coincided with a dramatic increase in the incidence of obesity, diabetes, heart disease, cancers and other life-changing chronic illnesses,” according to the suit. “There is a growing and increasingly irrefutable body of evidence tying the rise of UPF to these adverse health effects.”
The suit said the addictive nature of the food “is a feature of UPF, not a bug. UPF manufacturers are tricking us into eating ourselves to death.”
The defendants are the Kraft Heinz Co., Mondelez International Inc., Post Holdings Inc., the Coca-Cola Co., PepsiCo Inc., General Mills Inc., Nestle USA Inc., Kellanova, WK Kellogg Co., Mars Inc. and Conagra Brands.
The suit seeks an injunction preventing further deceptive marketing and requiring “affirmative action to ameliorate the effects of their prior false marketing.” The suit asks for statewide civil penalties and money to abate the public nuisance in San Francisco.
Publications covering the suit include Reuters, the Washington Post, the Associated Press and the New York Times.
San Francisco is represented by San Francisco City Attorney David Chiu, Andrus Anderson, DiCello Levitt, and Morgan & Morgan.
Morgan & Morgan filed a prior suit against ultra-processed food companies on behalf of a Pennsylvania consumer. The judge overseeing the case, U.S. District Judge Mia Perez of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, tossed the suit in August, with leave to amend.
Perez said the complaint didn’t show how specific foods caused the plaintiff’s Type 2 diabetes and nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, according to earlier coverage by Reuters. An amended complaint has been filed, the New York Times reports.
Jennifer Pomeranz, a public health lawyer and an associate professor at the School of Global Public Health at New York University, told the Washington Post that San Francisco’s suit could have better chances of success.
Private plaintiffs trying to prove harm face more legal hurdles than city or state attorneys suing on behalf of the public, Pomeranz said.
San Francisco’s complaint is “incredibly well researched,” Pomeranz told the Washington Post. “It’s based on the most recent science.”
Sarah Gallo, the senior vice president of product policy for the trade group Consumer Brands Association, issued a statement to several publications that defended the companies.
“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,” Gallo said. “Companies adhere to the rigorous evidence-based safety standards established by the FDA to deliver safe, affordable and convenient products that consumers depend on every day.”
Write a letter to the editor, share a story tip or update, or report an error.
