San Francisco has filed a first-of-its-kind lawsuit against ten major food corporations, alleging they designed and marketed ultra-processed foods (UPFs) to be addictive and that these products have caused a public health crisis. The city seeks to recover associated healthcare costs and stop the companies’ marketing practices. If successful, this case could redefine how we talk about UPFs—and how much responsibility manufacturers bear for the chronic disease burden we see today.

The lawsuit, led by City Attorney David Chiu, targets the companies that essentially built the modern grocery ecosystem: Kraft Heinz, PepsiCo, Coca-Cola, Nestlé, General Mills, Mondelēz, Kellogg, Post, Mars, and Conagra.

The city claims that these companies created products designed to override normal hunger cues, encouraged overconsumption through strategic formulations, and then marketed them aggressively—particularly to children and low-income families. Mascots like Tony the Tiger and Fred Flintstone are called out specifically as tools for building brand loyalty before kids even understand what’s in their food.

Underlying all of this is a bigger claim, one that aligns with what many metabolic health experts have been saying for years: UPFs aren’t just empty calories. They may be actively driving metabolic dysfunction on a population scale. From type 2 diabetes to cardiovascular disease, the city argues that these companies have contributed to an entirely preventable public health burden.

The city isn’t just looking for money—though it is seeking damages to offset rising healthcare costs tied to chronic disease. It also wants:

  • Court-ordered changes to how these companies market UPFs in California
  • A corrective advertising campaign to counter decades of messaging
  • Statewide restrictions on the tactics used to target vulnerable populations

This is notable because it goes beyond punishment. The city is asking the court to intervene in how food is marketed going forward.

This lawsuit follows an earlier individual case in Pennsylvania, where a man sued over personal health damage he attributed to UPFs. That case was dismissed because the plaintiff couldn’t prove direct causation—an almost impossible bar in nutrition science. But even in dismissal, the judge described the science around UPFs as “troubling,” which is unusually strong language.

San Francisco’s team is working with some of the same attorneys, but they’ve shifted the strategy. Instead of trying to prove that one person’s diabetes or heart disease came from specific products, they’re arguing that UPFs have created a broad public health nuisance—one that drains city resources and harms entire communities.

How Industry Is Responding

The Consumer Brands Association, which represents many of the defendants, says there’s no universal scientific definition for “ultra-processed foods” and that their products comply with FDA safety standards. This is technically true—and also highlights the gap between regulatory language and what emerging metabolic science is showing us about processed food systems.

Regardless of how the case plays out, this is a cultural shift. A major U.S. city is saying out loud, in legal language, what many have believed for years: that ultra-processed foods aren’t just convenient—they’re significantly contributing to the metabolic dysfunction crisis.

If this lawsuit gains traction, it could open the door for other municipalities to seek damages or push for marketing restrictions, much like the early tobacco cases did. And even if it doesn’t succeed, it pushes UPFs out of the realm of “personal choice” and into the realm of societal cost.