San Francisco's Bold Strike Against Big Food

Rex Ballard
Dec 18, 2025
6 min read

A Lawsuit Targeting Ultra-Processed Foods and Its Broader Implications

In a move that could reshape the American food industry, San Francisco has filed a groundbreaking lawsuit against ten major manufacturers of ultra-processed foods (UPFs), accusing them of creating addictive products that have sparked a public health crisis. Echoing the epic battles against Big Tobacco in the 1990s, this case highlights how corporate strategies—rooted in historical ties between tobacco and food giants—have engineered over-consumption, leading to soaring rates of obesity, diabetes, and other chronic diseases. With potential support from national figures like HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and signals of wider litigation, this suit may mark the beginning of a new era of accountability for "Big Food."

The Genesis of the Lawsuit: A Public Health Emergency

Ultra-processed foods—think sodas, chips, sugary cereals, packaged snacks, and instant meals—now make up about 70% of the U.S. food supply. These items are industrially engineered with added sugars, fats, salts, artificial flavors, colors, emulsifiers, and preservatives, often derived from modified whole foods like corn or soy.

Their rise stems from industry consolidation in the 1970s and 1980s, when a handful of corporations gained dominance, prioritizing profitable, shelf-stable products over nutritious ones.

The health consequences are dire. UPFs have been linked to a quadrupling of Type 2 diabetes rates nationally, a doubling of colorectal cancer and obesity in young adults, and increases in fatty liver disease, heart issues, inflammatory bowel diseases, and even depression.

Childhood obesity rates from 1963 to 2018 - data courtesy of NIH.gov

Increase in the incidence of colorectal cancer by age group from 1992 to 2018 - data courtesy of NIH.gov

These problems hit hardest in Black, Latino, and low-income communities, widening health disparities. The economic burden is massive: U.S. healthcare costs have jumped from 5% to nearly 20% of GDP, with California spending $124.1 billion on Medi-Cal in 2024 alone. San Francisco reports over $3.95 billion in related expenses, including $85 million for diabetes hospitalizations in 2016.

On December 2, 2025, City Attorney David Chiu filed the suit on behalf of the People of California, targeting Kraft Heinz, Mondelez International, Post Holdings, Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, General Mills, Nestle USA, Kellogg, Mars, and Conagra Brands.

San Francisco City Attorney David Chiu - photo courtesy of sfcityattorney.org

The complaint alleges these companies knowingly designed addictive products by fine-tuning fat-sugar-salt combinations to trigger overeating, while hiding risks and aggressively marketing to children via cartoon mascots, Disney tie-ins, and targeted ads in vulnerable areas. A key piece of evidence: a 1999 industry meeting where executives discussed potential $100 billion annual health costs but pressed on for profits.

This isn't just about poor nutrition—it's about neurobiological manipulation. UPFs exploit the brain's reward system, much like addictive substances, overriding fullness signals and leading to compulsive consumption. Studies show people on UPF diets eat 500 extra calories daily compared to whole-food eaters, fostering addiction-like behaviors in 14% of adults and 12% of kids.

To see the lawsuit announcement in action, watch this press conference excerpt where David Chiu outlines the case against the manufacturers for engineering addiction and deceptive practices.

Video courtesy of sfcityattorney.org

Frames show Chiu speaking at the podium with overlaid text highlighting key accusations, such as "They used addiction science," "Like the tobacco industry," and listings of defendant companies like Heinz, Mondelez, and Nestle.

Current Status and Legal Framework

As of December 18, 2025, the case—People of the State of California v. Kraft Heinz Company, Inc., et al.—is in its early stages in San Francisco Superior Court, with no hearings, motions, or defendant responses yet. It builds on California's AB 1264, the first state law defining UPFs, which strengthens claims by categorizing these foods as inherently risky.

Legally, it invokes the Unfair Competition Law and public nuisance statutes, framing UPFs as a widespread harm similar to tobacco or opioids. Unlike earlier false-advertising cases, this one attacks the products' composition and addictive design. Challenges include proving direct causation amid factors like genetics, but internal documents and scientific evidence could tip the scales, as in tobacco litigation. A related individual suit was dismissed in August 2025 for weak causation links, but it's being refined.

For a news summary of the filing, check this ABC News report:

Shadows of Big Tobacco: Shared Ownership and Scientific Tactics

The parallels to tobacco run deep, rooted in corporate history. From the 1960s to early 2000s, tobacco giants like R.J. Reynolds and Philip Morris diversified into food amid cigarette scrutiny, acquiring brands like Nabisco, Kraft, and General Foods. They transferred patents on additives and marketing savvy, making foods 29%–80% more likely to be hyper-palatable under their ownership. By 2018, over 68% of the food supply was engineered this way, sidelining healthier options.

Tobacco science focused on nicotine manipulation—boosting absorption, creating tolerance to hook users. Food science adopted this: optimizing "bliss points" for dopamine rushes in the brain's reward pathways, mirroring nicotine's effects. Both induce compulsivity, with UPFs causing brain changes like heightened cue sensitivity and withdrawal symptoms. While drugs like nicotine rewire synapses more intensely, UPFs exploit evolutionary cravings for calories, turning survival instincts into profit drivers. This legacy has tripled obesity rates since the 1980s, with UPFs now causing deaths rivaling smoking.

Political Backdrop: Alignment with RFK Jr.'s Agenda

The suit dovetails with national politics, particularly HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s "Make America Healthy Again" (MAHA) initiative under the Trump administration. Though the Trump Administration hasn't directly endorsed San Francisco's lawsuit—no statements or X posts reference the case— RJK Jr.s past criticisms of UPFs as chronic disease culprits align closely.

RFK Jr. testifying in Congress - photo courtesy of NPR.org

He pushes for ditching UPFs in school lunches and revamping dietary guidelines to emphasize whole foods, framing the industry as a threat akin to tobacco. This bipartisan resonance—progressive San Francisco meeting conservative MAHA—could amplify federal actions, like FDA UPF definitions or subsidies for healthy eating.

Signs of Expanding Litigation and Future Ramifications

No other entities have joined yet, but experts predict a "wave" of copycat suits. States like Arizona, Louisiana, Texas, and Wisconsin are enacting UPF restrictions in schools, providing legal footholds. Law firms are soliciting plaintiffs for class actions on addiction and health harms, while a federal judge's "deep concern" in a related case hints at judicial sympathy.

If San Francisco wins, outcomes could include injunctions against child marketing, product reformulations, health warnings, and billions in restitution—mirroring the $206 billion tobacco settlement. Broader shifts might involve school bans, labeling mandates, or taxes on additives, fostering a cultural pivot to whole foods. On the other hand, a loss could reinforce "personal choice" defenses, stalling progress in the war for healthier foods. Deeper still, this lawsuit challenges capitalism's ethics: should we tolerate engineered addiction in essentials like food, unlike regulated substances? As global UPF consumption rises, the case could redefine corporate responsibility, prioritizing health over endless growth.

For more visual insights, watch this news clip on the lawsuit's details and parallels to Big Tobacco:

Frames include grocery store aisles filled with UPF products, company logos like Kraft and Coca-Cola, lawsuit complaint excerpts, and David Chiu at the press conference.

Additional recommended videos:

San Francisco City Attorney David Chiu on lawsuit against ultra-processed foods: Chiu discusses how companies use artificial chemicals to make addictive products, linking them to chronic diseases and drawing tobacco parallels.
San Francisco Sues Food Companies Over Ultra-Processed Products: Covers the accusations against specific companies and seeks penalties for deceptive marketing.
San Francisco sues ultra-processed food makers: Reports on the suit's alignment with anti-UPF views and responses from trade groups.