Why San Francisco’s Lawsuit Should Be a Turning Point in the Regulation of Ultra-Processed Foods
Addison Fouts
JD 2027, Loyola University Chicago School of Law
Ultra-processed foods are causing chronic health issues in Americans. The FDA regulates 80% of food products in the United States, yet there is little regulation regarding ultra-processed foods. Cities across the U.S. are taking their own steps towards regulation in order to protect their residents. San Francisco’s recent lawsuit marks an important step forward in regulating ultra-processed foods here in the United States. This lawsuit could be a turning point in regulation for the U.S., as it highlights the dangers of ultra-processed foods, the effects lackluster regulation has on communities, and how transparency can create a healthy step forward for Americans.
San Francisco Files Lawsuit to Address Ultra-Processed Foods
San Francisco recently filed a landmark lawsuit against several major food corporations, including Kraft Heinz, Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, General Mills, Nestle, Kellogg, and more, accusing them of knowingly selling ultra-processed foods that contribute to chronic disease and a rising public health crisis. Ultra-processed foods are foods that are mass produced with some industrially processed ingredients. These foods are made with ingredients and additives that significant differ from whole foods such as refined carbohydrates and refined sugars. An example of an ultra-processed food is frozen pizza .The complaint alleges that these companies have violated California’s unfair competition law and public nuisance laws by contributing to increased public health costs that stem from chronic disease linked to ultra-processed foods. The State seeks an order requiring Defendants to end their deceptive marketing practices and pay restitution to the city to offset the costs of healthcare. This lawsuit highlights systematic regulatory failures and demonstrates why federal and state governments must adopt stronger policies to regulate ultra-processed foods. San Francisco’s approach reframes dietary harm as a structural public health issue, not just an individual choice or problem. This lawsuit may change the way people think about food regulation in the United States.
Tobacco Lawsuits provide an example of past change in the community
In 1998, four of the largest U.S. based tobacco companies entered into the Master Settlement Agreement (MSA) to settle several state lawsuits brought against them. These lawsuits were brought to recover health care costs associated with treating illnesses and conditions related to smoking. The main goal of the MSA was to reduce smoking in the U.S., particularly among youth. One of the most notable requirements was a ban on cartoons in advertising, packaging, or promoting tobacco products. In 1997, smoking among high schoolers was reported to be 36.4%, where as in 2019, it had dropped to just 6%.
Attorney David Chiu compared the marketing tactics for these foods to that of tobacco products, emphasizing how their bright colors mask the dangerous consequences of consumption. Similarly, in San Francisco’s present lawsuit, advertising aimed at a young audience is also a concern. Should San Francisco win the lawsuit, the U.S. may see similar effects as it once did with the reduction in smoking tobacco products. Likewise the branding, packaging, and convenience of ultra-processed foods contribute to the harmful consumption Americans experience on a daily basis. Bright colored packaging, cartoons, and the like attract consumers to these products without consumers fully understanding the dangers of consumption. These statistics clearly demonstrate need for regulation in the ultra-processed food space to make safe food products accessible to all Americans.
A history of the lack of regulation
Ultra-processed foods are appealing to consumers because they are easier to digest, convenient, and include ingredients that stimulate the brain’s reward system, making them addicting. Despite their abundance in the market, there has been a significant lack of regulation on the chemical ingredients and additives typically included in ultra-processed foods. In 1958, the Food & Drug Administration (FDA) began to recognize ingredients under the category “Generally Recognized as Safe” or GRAS. This allows the FDA to waive inspection of common household ingredients, such as vinegar and baking soda to speed up the regulation process. Later, in 1997, the FDA began to allow companies to voluntarily declare ingredients they use as GRAS. These determinations are made by the company and do not require an independent investigation by the FDA. Since 2000, 99% of food chemicals introduced were not approved by the FDA.
Current regulation by the Food and Drug Administration
In May 2025, the FDA and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) announced its partnership on a Nutrition Regulatory Science Program. The goal of the initiative is to answer questions to help make Americans’ diets healthier. The study investigates maternal and infant dietary exposures, changes in metabolic health due to food additives, and how and why ultra-processed foods harm one’s health. The FDA hopes that in finding answers to these questions, there will be an increase transparency in the food industry, allowing Americans to make informed decisions when choosing what to eat. Many experts are working on the initiative in several topics such as nutrition, toxicology, behavioral science, chemistry, and more. More recently, the FDA announced its commitment and new initiatives for regulating ultra-processed foods. These goals include removing harmful food dyes, increasing transparency about ingredients in the U.S. food supply, and expanding the inspection of food facilities.
As the FDA continues to work on initiatives to make food safer for Americans to consume, it is important to recognize the work that cities, such as San Francisco, are contributing to help boost the movement forward. San Francisco is providing an important step in moving the effort forward and other cities should follow its example.