San Francisco Sues Major Food Companies Over Ultra-Processed Products

San Francisco City Attorney David Chiu has filed a lawsuit against nine major food manufacturers, alleging that their ultra-processed products are fueling a public health crisis and driving up healthcare costs. This marks the first government-led legal action in the United States to target the makers of ultra-processed foods for harm allegedly caused by their products.

The companies named in the civil suit include Kraft Heinz, Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, General Mills, Kellogg’s, Nestlé USA, Mars, ConAgra Brands, and Post Holdings. The city alleges that these corporations have knowingly produced and marketed food products that contribute to chronic illnesses including heart disease, obesity, and diabetes.

Chiu said the lawsuit aims to hold companies accountable for what he described as deliberate strategies to develop and promote addictive food products. “They took food and made it unrecognizable and harmful to the human body,” Chiu said. “This is not about consumers making better choices. These companies engineered a public health crisis.”

The lawsuit claims the food industry pursued product formulations heavy in added sugars, sodium, and synthetic additives, despite internal knowledge about health risks associated with such diets. It also accuses manufacturers of deceptive marketing practices that target vulnerable populations and obscure health information.

Ultra-processed foods are typically industrial formulations made with chemically modified ingredients not used in standard kitchens. These include artificial flavors, colors, sweeteners and preservatives designed to increase shelf life and appeal. Studies published in journals such as BMJ and the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition have connected high consumption of such foods to negative health outcomes.

San Francisco is seeking financial restitution and civil penalties from the companies. The legal complaint also calls for changes to how the food products are marketed and sold. The city argues the lawsuit is necessary to recoup public funds spent treating diet-related conditions and to prevent further harm.

The suit draws comparisons with historic litigation against the tobacco industry. In 1998, major tobacco companies agreed to a $206 billion settlement with U.S. states after being sued over health consequences tied to smoking. Chiu’s office has cited that case as a precedent for holding corporations financially accountable for widespread public health costs.

The food industry has not yet responded in full to the lawsuit, but trade groups have generally defended processed products as safe and compliant with current federal regulations. Critics of government-led food litigation, such as the Competitive Enterprise Institute, argue that such actions restrict consumer choice, could raise costs, and may distract from personal responsibility in dietary decisions.

The case opens a new front in regulatory and legal scrutiny over the food industry’s role in shaping dietary habits. Amid ongoing national debates about health equity and chronic illness, local governments are increasingly exploring legal avenues to recover costs and prompt changes from corporations with mass influence over the food supply.