San Francisco has initiated a landmark legal action against Coca-Cola and nine other prominent food manufacturers, accusing them of engineering addictive ultra-processed foods that have contributed to a growing public health crisis, particularly impacting low-income and minority communities.
City Attorney David Chiu filed the case on 2 December 2025 in San Francisco Superior Court, naming Kraft Heinz, Mondelez International, PepsiCo, General Mills, Nestlé USA, Kellogg, Mars Incorporated, Post Holdings, and ConAgra Brands alongside Coca-Cola. This marks the first occasion in which a government entity has taken legal action against food companies over the health implications of ultra-processed products.
‘They took food and made it unrecognisable and harmful to the human body,’ Chiu stated in an official release. ‘These companies engineered a public health crisis, profited handsomely from it, and now they must accept responsibility for the harm they have caused.’
Big Tobacco’s Playbook in Your Supermarket
The lawsuit draws a stark comparison between the tactics employed by ultra-processed food producers and those historically used by the tobacco industry.
According to the filing, tobacco giants Philip Morris and RJ Reynolds entered the food sector via acquisitions from the 1960s onwards. RJ Reynolds purchased Hawaiian Punch, Nabisco, and Del Monte, while Philip Morris acquired General Foods and Kraft, creating what was then the world’s largest food conglomerate.
Rather than operating these companies independently, the tobacco firms integrated them into their existing corporate structures, facilitating a transfer of personnel, technology, and expertise towards developing addictive products. An executive at Philip Morris once boasted that consumers could enjoy ‘a complete meal of Philip Morris foods and beverages, followed, of course, by one of our cigarettes.’
The lawsuit alleges that this knowledge was deliberately utilised to make food products more habit-forming, with competitors swiftly adopting similar tactics.
Targeting Children and Minorities
Perhaps the most troubling aspect of the case concerns targeted marketing strategies.
The filing claims that food conglomerates employed integrated campaigns featuring cartoon mascots such as Tony the Tiger, working with Disney, Nickelodeon, Mattel, and Marvel to reach young audiences. A Kraft ‘Kids Task Force’, owned by Philip Morris, reportedly claimed its promotional efforts would ‘reach about 95% of the kids in the target 6 to 12 age group in the US.’
The lawsuit further asserts that Black and Latino children were subjected to 70% more advertisements for ultra-processed foods than their white counterparts.
The health consequences are stark. Over the past three decades, the prevalence of diabetes among Black Americans has quadrupled, according to the City Attorney’s filing. In San Francisco alone, hospitalisation rates for diabetes are three to six times higher in Black communities compared to other racial groups, with death rates also significantly elevated.
Impact on Family Budgets
For families living on limited incomes, the lawsuit highlights how choices have been manipulated rather than left to chance.
Approximately 70% of the American food supply now consists of ultra-processed products. While supermarket shelves may appear to offer endless variety, the lawsuit argues that consumers are effectively ‘choosing between different configurations of chemicals’ produced by a handful of corporations.
A report from the US Centres for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) published in August 2025 showed that over half of the food people consume daily comes from heavily processed items. Those with lower incomes tend to rely on these more heavily than those with higher earnings.
San Francisco’s Director of Health, Daniel Tsai, noted that these products ‘disproportionately harm low-income communities and communities of colour’ and contribute to rising rates of chronic illnesses such as diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and certain cancers.
Warnings Ignored
The lawsuit also reveals a pivotal meeting held in Minneapolis on 8 April 1999, where industry executives were warned that their practices had ‘gone too far’.
Pillsbury’s Chief Technical Officer James Behnke and Kraft Vice-President Michael Mudd reportedly told assembled CEOs that ultra-processed foods were costing the US upwards of £75 billion ($100 billion) annually in health-related expenses, with a public health toll ‘rivaling that of tobacco.’
Despite this warning, the industry allegedly dismissed the concerns, continuing to pursue increasingly addictive formulations.
The Case That Could Change Everything
San Francisco’s bold legal move targets major food companies, highlighting how they deliberately design overly processed, addictive products that hit vulnerable neighbourhoods hardest.
This case could pave the way for other cities to challenge food corporations through lawsuits addressing false advertising, reparations for harm caused, or fines. The rising medical bills linked to manipulative recipes and deceptive marketing—especially aimed at children and low-income populations—are at the heart of these efforts.
If successful, this legal action might offer greater protection for families, particularly those with fewer resources and people of colour, from profit-driven business practices that prioritise earnings over public health.
Originally published on IBTimes UK
