ESG Enforcement Tracker
Charting the rise of criminal and regulatory enforcement
Share
San Francisco files claim against ultra-processed food manufacturers
2 December 2025
California unfair competition law and public nuisance
United States
Ongoing
State of California
Social
The Kraft Heinz Company, Mondelez International, Inc., Post Holdings Inc., The Coca-Cola Company, Pepsico, Inc., General Mills, Inc., Nestle USA, Inc., Kellanova, WK Kellogg Co., Mars Incorporated, Conagra Brands, Inc., and Does 1-50
Key Facts:
Background
The Lancet, a leading medical journal, recently published a series of key findings relating to ultra-processed foods (UPFs) and their impact on human health.
UPFs can broadly be described as food products composed of formulations of industrially manufactured or chemically manipulated ingredients that are not found in the average home kitchen, which contain limited or no whole food content. UPFs are made palatable by using combinations of flavours, colours, emulsifiers, thickeners, and other additives. Common examples include sugary breakfast cereals, packaged snacks such as crisps and biscuits, carbonated soft drinks, instant noodles and soups, ready meals, commercial baby foods, flavoured yogurts, and processed meats including sausages and chicken nuggets. UPFs exceed 50% of the daily calorie intake in the US and UK.
The published findings state that UPFs:
- are linked to harm in every major organ system of the human body;
- are associated with an increased risk of a dozen health conditions (including cancer, obesity, type 2 diabetes, depression, heart disease and cognitive decline); and
- that their rise is being driven by global corporations rather than individual choices.
Claim on behalf of the people of the State of California
A few weeks after these findings were published, San Francisco’s City Attorney David Chui filed a claim against 10 leading food manufacturers on 2 December 2025 with reference to the growing body of research regarding the impact of UPFs on human health.
The claim accuses the Defendants of “unfair and deceptive” practices in their food marketing and sales in breach of California’s unfair competition law and public nuisance statute, arguing that the companies sold food knowing it made people unwell. It alleges that local counties and cities have been forced to carry the costs of treating residents who have been harmed by consuming the Defendants’ products. It also argues that related marketing campaigns disproportionately targeted Black and Latino children, “who have been targeted with 70% more ads” for UPFs than their white counterparts.
The claim seeks unspecified damages in the form of restitution and civil penalties to “offset astronomical health care costs associated with UPF consumption”. In addition, it seeks a statewide order enjoining the Defendants from further deceptive marketing and requiring them to take affirmative steps to ameliorate the effects of their actions.
Regional context
California recently passed the first bill in the USA to define UPFs, laying a foundation to ban them from schools. The state has already banned certain additives from schools, as well as banning fast-food restaurants from giving away toys.
