San Francisco has opened a sweeping legal fight with some of the world’s biggest food companies, accusing them of profiting from ultra-processed products that fuel chronic disease. The case targets household names like Coca-Cola, Nestlé and Kraft, arguing that their business model depends on engineering cheap, addictive foods that bear little resemblance to traditional ingredients.
At its core, the lawsuit asks a blunt question of the modern food system: if corporations knowingly design and market products that damage public health, should they be treated more like tobacco companies than benign grocery brands. I see this case as an early test of whether the law is ready to treat ultra-processed food as a systemic hazard rather than a matter of individual choice.
The lawsuit that put ultra-processed food on trial
San Francisco City Attorney David Chiu has filed a civil lawsuit on behalf of the city that targets what he describes as the largest manufacturers of ultra-processed foods in the United States. In the complaint, his office argues that these conglomerates flooded the country with products that are high in sugar, salt and industrial additives, while offering little nutritional value and creating patterns of dependence that resemble addiction. According to the filing, the companies did not simply respond to consumer demand, they allegedly reshaped the food environment so that ultra-processed options became the default in supermarkets, schools and corner stores, particularly in low income neighborhoods, and did so despite mounting evidence that such diets are linked with obesity and metabolic disease, as detailed by the city attorney’s office.
In framing the case, Chiu is not just challenging individual products but the entire category of “ultra-processed” food, a term that covers everything from sugary breakfast cereals to shelf stable snacks and ready to heat meals. The lawsuit contends that these items are engineered to be hyper palatable and easy to overconsume, and that the companies behind them have long known about the health risks yet continued to market them as convenient, even wholesome, choices for families. By putting that allegation in front of a court, San Francisco is effectively asking judges and juries to decide whether the modern processed food industry has crossed a line from aggressive marketing into deceptive and harmful conduct that violates consumer protection and public nuisance laws.
Why Coca-Cola, Nestlé and Kraft are in the crosshairs
The complaint zeroes in on some of the most recognizable brands in the global pantry, including Coca-Cola, Nestlé and Kraft, arguing that their scale and influence make them uniquely responsible for shaping American diets. These corporations control sprawling portfolios of sodas, candies, frozen dinners, instant noodles and packaged snacks that dominate shelf space in supermarkets and vending machines. By naming Coca-Cola, Nestlé and Kraft explicitly, San Francisco is signaling that this is not a symbolic action against fringe players but a direct challenge to the giants that built their fortunes on processed food, a point underscored in coverage that describes how San Francisco is suing processed food giants including Coca-Cola, Nestlé and Kraft…