News

Kraft Heinz, Mondelēz, Coca-Cola, and Nestlé accused of marketing ‘addictive’ UPFs at children

Major food manufacturers have been hit with a first-of-its-kind lawsuit alleging that they specifically engineer their ultra-processed foods (UPFs) to be addictive, and that they market the products towards children.

Executives at companies including Kraft Heinz, Mondelēz, Coca-Cola, and Nestlé have been accused of “knowingly endangering” public health, particularly of children, in a “reckless pursuit of profits”. The marketing approaches of the companies have been likened to that of ‘big tobacco’.

In the lawsuit, filed in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, plaintiff Bryce Martinez alleges he developed type 2 diabetes and non-alcoholic fatty liver disease, diagnosed at age 16, as a result of consuming the companies' products.

The lawsuit reads: “Due to Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiff regularly, frequently, and chronically ingested their UPF, which caused him to contract Type 2 Diabetes and Non-Alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease. Plaintiff is now suffering from these devastating diseases, and will continue to suffer for the rest of his life.”

Carlos Monteiro, the Brazilian public health professor who coined the UPF term, posted on X: “A first-of-its-kind lawsuit against 11 UPF industries alleging they engineer their UPF products to be addictive with details on the actions taken to target children including internal memos, meetings [and] the research conducted to create addictive substances.”

The food companies named are Coca-Cola, Conagra, General Mills, Kellanova, Kraft, Mars, Mondelez, Nestlé, PepsiCo, Post and WK Kellogg.

In a response, the Consumer Brands Association, a US-based trade association for manufacturers of consumer packaged goods, pointed to the lack of an “agreed upon scientific definition” of UPFs. “Attempting to classify foods as unhealthy simply because they are processed, or demonizing food by ignoring its full nutrient content, misleads consumers and exacerbates health disparities,” Sarah Gallo, the Association’s senior vice president of product policy, told Reuters.

Marion Nestle, Paulette Goddard Professor of nutrition, food studies and public health (Emerita) at New York University said the lawsuit “makes interesting reading”.

The lawsuit contains references to how the same MRI machines used by scientific researchers to study potential cures for addiction are used by UPF companies to engineer their products to be more addictive.

It also notes how ‘big tobacco’ repurposed marketing strategies designed to sell cigarettes to children and minorities, and aggressively marketed to these groups. The UPF industry currently spends a reported $2 billion each year marketing UPFs to children.

A massive market with huge health impacts

Studies show that UPFs make up more than 73% of the food in the United States’ food supply and 67% of American children’s diets on average. At least 14% of adults and 12% of children in the US have been reported to demonstrate behavioural indicators of addiction in response to UPFs. The lawsuit alleges the problem remains pervasive among American children due to the food industry’s targeted marketing toward them.

“These companies’ tactics closely mirror those employed by big tobacco, with a singular objective: to addict kids to their products,” said Chris Seeger from law firm Seeger Weiss, which filed the lawsuit together with lawyers at Morgan & Morgan.

Other lawyers have suggested the case will be difficult to prove. There are many factors involved in someone’s health, for example, while proving causation between the allegedly deceptive advertising of the defendants and the alleged health impacts of their foods will also be a challenge.

However, the case certainly intensifies the spotlight on UPFs. In a recent report, the World Health Organization (WHO) placed processed foods in the same harmful category as tobacco, alcohol, fossil fuels, and certain occupational practices. These categories combined are linked to nearly 7,500 deaths per day in Europe.

The lawsuit references scientific research showing that when compared to less-processed foods, ultra-processed foods significantly increase disease risks – even if they have the same amount of fat, sugar, salt, carbohydrates and other nutrients as comparable, less processed foods.

Writing about recent studies on UPFs, Nestle at New York University said it is “great to see all this research coming together. Whatever the reasons – energy density, hyper-palatability, less chewing – the take-home-message seems utterly obvious: reduce intake of ultra-processed foods,” she added.

Doubts over definition

There is confusion among consumers as to what constitutes a UPF. Recent research shows that many US consumers cannot correctly identify UPF products and vastly underestimate their consumption of these foods.

For example, a recent survey by Innova Markets, presented at the Institute of Food Technologists (IFT) First in Chicago in July, revealed that nearly 30% of US consumers believe they consume UPFs less than once a week or never, while over half of consumers say they eat UPFs between one and six times a week. However, studies looking at actual UPF intake show that these foods constitute about 58% of the average US diet, which implies a stark discrepancy between perceived and actual intake.

When Innova asked consumers about the kinds of food they considered ultra-processed, the picture that emerged was closer to the traditional notion of ‘junk food’ than the classification of UPFs, as used in scientific literature. Under the NOVA system – created in 2010 when Brazilian researchers including Monteiro classified food and beverages according to their degree of processing – UPFs, considered as ‘category 4’ on the scale, comprise snacks, drinks, ready meals, and other product types largely or entirely formulated by substances extracted from or derived from food constituents.

“While the media, some scientists, and some NGOs have been happy to promote the term and use it to denigrate industry, the actual definition remains very nebulous and is open to a very large degree of interpretation by all who use it,” said Andrew Curtis, director general scientific and regulatory affairs at Snack, Nut and Crisp Manufacturers Association (SNACMA), recently.

As Ingredients Network reported, the doubts and deliberations over definitions have slowed the process of regulating these products. Evidence to date is almost exclusively of the association variety, such as observational studies, prospective cohort, and cross-sectional studies, WHO said. “A clear path of causality cannot be made between consumption of UPF and most if not all observed health outcomes,” added a WHO spokesperson.

More UPF lawsuits on the way?

The lawsuit kicks off what could be a long process. The document includes claims for conspiracy, negligence, fraudulent misrepresentation, and unfair business practices.

If the ruling is that UPFs have been falsely advertised, for example that they are healthy when in fact they are not, companies would have to change their marketing. However, if the focus is on the health effects, the industry could be looking at potential UPF bans or at least mandatory warning labels.

Morgan & Morgan attorney Rene Rocha said the lawsuit is the result of more than 12 months of research and investigation. “Our goal is to hold these companies responsible for their alleged efforts to make ultra-processed foods as addictive as possible and get them into the hands of children,” he added.