San Francisco Launches Landmark Lawsuit Against Food Giants Over Ultra-Processed Products

The city of San Francisco has filed a groundbreaking lawsuit against ten major food manufacturers, including Coca-Cola and Nestlé, alleging their ultra-processed foods are directly fueling a public health crisis. This unprecedented government action, announced on Tuesday, December 2, 2025, seeks to hold corporations accountable for diseases like Type 2 diabetes, fatty liver disease, and cancer, which the city claims are linked to these products.

San Francisco City Attorney David Chiu stated that these companies "created a public health crisis" through the engineering and marketing of ultra-processed foods, making them "unrecognizable and harmful to the human body." The lawsuit, filed in San Francisco Superior Court, argues that the health care costs associated with treating these conditions have fallen heavily on the city and its residents.

The legal action targets prominent companies such as Kraft Heinz Company, Mondelez International, PepsiCo, General Mills, Kellogg, Mars Incorporated, and ConAgra Brands. According to CBS News, City Attorney Chiu emphasized that the lawsuit is the first of its kind, marking a significant escalation in efforts to address the health impacts of industrially produced foods.

Officials contend that these ultra-processed products are deliberately designed to be addictive, stimulating cravings and encouraging overconsumption. The Guardian reported that the city accuses the companies of "unfair and deceptive acts" in their marketing and sales practices, which violate California's Unfair Competition Law and public nuisance statute.

The lawsuit draws parallels to past legal battles against the tobacco industry, suggesting that food manufacturers knowingly marketed harmful products while prioritizing profits. San Francisco Director of Health Daniel Tsai noted that these products disproportionately harm low-income communities and communities of color, contributing to rising rates of chronic illness.

The city is seeking unspecified damages, restitution, and civil penalties to help offset the "astronomical health care costs" incurred by local governments due to ultra-processed food consumption. Additionally, the lawsuit aims for a court order to prevent companies from continuing deceptive marketing practices, particularly those targeting children.

This legal challenge comes amidst growing scientific consensus linking ultra-processed foods to a wide array of adverse health outcomes. NPR highlighted that the lawsuit cites numerous scientific studies demonstrating the negative impact of these foods on human health, underscoring the urgency of the city's action.

• Background and Historical Context: This lawsuit represents a significant shift, being the nation's first government-led legal action against ultra-processed food manufacturers, as reported by The Independent. While individual and class-action lawsuits have emerged, such as the 2024 case in Pennsylvania against Kraft Heinz and others, they have often faced challenges in proving direct causation for personal injury claims. San Francisco's approach, focusing on public nuisance and deceptive marketing, echoes successful litigation strategies previously employed against the tobacco industry, according to CBS News.

• Key Stakeholders and Allegations: The primary plaintiff is the City of San Francisco, represented by City Attorney David Chiu, who asserts that food companies knowingly sold addictive and harmful products. The defendants are ten major corporations, including Coca-Cola, Nestlé USA, and PepsiCo, accused of engineering foods to be hyper-palatable and addictive. The lawsuit alleges these companies prioritized profits over public health, contributing to a chronic disease pandemic, as noted by The Guardian.

• Economic and Social Implications: The lawsuit highlights the immense financial burden placed on cities and states due to the healthcare costs associated with diseases linked to ultra-processed foods, estimated to be upwards of $100 billion annually nationwide, according to The Independent. Beyond financial costs, San Francisco Director of Health Daniel Tsai emphasized the disproportionate impact on low-income and minority communities, where these products are often aggressively marketed and consumed. This raises critical questions about health equity and corporate responsibility.

• Scientific Consensus on Health Impacts: Mounting scientific evidence strongly links ultra-processed foods (UPFs) to numerous severe health conditions. A recent review published in The Lancet, cited by The Guardian, found UPFs associated with harm in every major organ system and an increased risk of dozens of health conditions, including Type 2 diabetes, heart disease, certain cancers, and depression. Research indicates that over 70% of the US food supply consists of UPFs, with children deriving over 60% of their calories from these products.

• Legal Strategy and Precedent: San Francisco's lawsuit leverages California's Unfair Competition Law and public nuisance statute, seeking to prevent deceptive marketing and recover healthcare costs. This strategy aims to establish a legal precedent that could influence similar actions by other municipalities. However, as hoodline reported, turning nutrition research into courtroom victories can be challenging, as judges often require specific links between a plaintiff's illness and particular products.

• Industry Response and Regulatory Context: Food manufacturers and trade groups have historically pushed back against such claims, arguing that there is no universally accepted legal definition of "ultra-processed" and that many processed items are crucial for affordable diets, according to The Atlanta Voice. Despite industry resistance, California has recently taken steps to define UPFs and has banned certain additives in schools, indicating a growing regulatory trend that may support San Francisco's legal position.

• Potential Future Developments: This landmark lawsuit could inspire other cities and states to pursue similar legal actions against food manufacturers, potentially leading to a wave of litigation akin to those seen against the tobacco and opioid industries. The outcome may force significant changes in how ultra-processed foods are formulated, marketed, and labeled, ultimately impacting consumer choices and public health policies across the nation.