City claims major corporations knowingly designed addictive, harmful products marketed to children and vulnerable communities.
By yourNEWS Media Newsroom
San Francisco has filed a sweeping lawsuit against 11 of the nation’s largest food manufacturers, alleging they deliberately engineered a “public health crisis” by designing and marketing ultraprocessed foods to be addictive and harmful.
Filed by City Attorney David Chiu on behalf of the People of the State of California, the complaint targets major producers including Kraft Heinz, Mondelēz International, Post Holdings, Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, General Mills, Nestlé USA, Mars, ConAgra, Kellanova, and WK Kellogg. The case alleges that these companies used deceptive business practices and false advertising to flood the market with highly processed products “making us sick, plain and simple.”
According to the complaint, the corporations engaged in “unfair and deceptive acts” by chemically engineering foods to be addictive and aggressively marketing them to children through tactics reminiscent of Big Tobacco — including cartoon mascots, cross-promotions, and targeted advertising in low-income and minority communities.
“They knew their products make people very sick,” Chiu said at a press conference, calling the industry’s conduct “a direct parallel to the Big Tobacco playbook.” He said the lawsuit aims to hold the companies accountable for creating and profiting from a crisis of diet-related disease.
The city’s suit, brought under California’s Unfair Competition Law, seeks injunctive relief, civil penalties, and restitution to offset public health costs.
A Widespread and Costly Epidemic
Chiu cited CDC data showing that 62% of children’s calories and 53% of adults’ calories now come from ultraprocessed foods, with the highest consumption among kids ages 6 to 11. The lawsuit points to decades of research — including findings linking high consumption to obesity, Type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, reduced muscle mass, endocrine disruption, and higher mortality — to argue that food conglomerates knowingly fueled disease for profit.
“The body metabolizes and craves these chemicals differently — they are designed to be addictive,” Chiu said.
Attorney Ray Flores told The Defender he applauded the lawsuit’s intent but questioned its strength under the state’s unfair competition statute, which typically requires proof of a specific law violation.
Industry and Policy Responses
The Consumer Brands Association defended manufacturers, telling the Washington Post that companies are already improving nutrition by cutting sugar and sodium and adding more protein and fiber. Association vice president Sarah Gallo cautioned against “demonizing” foods and said firms are acting responsibly.
Still, pressure on the industry is mounting. U.S. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has called the American food supply “mass poisoning.” His Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) Commission’s 2025 report identified ultraprocessed foods as a key driver of childhood chronic disease and urged bans on petroleum-based dyes and tighter regulation of food additives.
At the state level, California Gov. Gavin Newsom recently signed a bipartisan bill defining ultraprocessed foods and initiating their phaseout from school meals. Lawmakers in more than 30 states have introduced nearly 90 bills to restrict food dyes and additives.
City’s Broader Goals
San Francisco officials say the lawsuit is both a consumer protection effort and a moral statement. “San Francisco families deserve to know what’s in their food,” Mayor Daniel Lurie said in a statement. “We’re not going to let our residents be misled.”
Health Director Daniel Tsai called the case “a critical step toward protecting the health of our communities.”
“This isn’t about consumers just making better choices,” Chiu said. “These companies engineered a public health crisis, profited handsomely, and now they need to take responsibility for the harm they’ve caused.”
Original article
Comments