A collaborative investigation by the Guardian and media partners across four continents has identified 235 lawsuits filed by ultra-processed food (UPF) companies against government health policies between 2010 and 2025. The legal challenges target regulations in Mexico, Colombia, Brazil, the US and the UK. Three-quarters of the identified cases were filed by UPF manufacturers or trade associations representing them, with eight parent corporations—Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, Mondelēz, Kellogg’s, Danone, Ferrero, Xignux and Heartland Food Products Group—responsible for 38% of cases where the plaintiff could be identified. Some corporations requested courts withhold their names from public disclosure.
Of the resolved cases, three-quarters were lost by the food companies. However, some legal battles lasted approximately 600 years in aggregate court time, and unsuccessful lawsuits frequently delayed the adoption of public health policies for years while consuming government resources. The litigation concentrated on front-of-pack warning labels, followed by taxes on junk food and marketing restrictions. Mexico saw the vast majority of cases with 193 lawsuits, followed by Colombia with 18 and Brazil with 17. The US had six lawsuits and the UK had one.
Experts noted the litigation strategy mirrors tactics employed by the tobacco industry for decades. They argue the lawsuits function primarily to delay, deter and constrain policy implementation rather than to overturn regulations. The litigation creates financial and administrative burdens on governments while prolonging implementation of health measures. UPF consumption continues to rise globally, accounting for approximately half the average diet in countries including the UK, the US and Australia, and is linked to increases in obesity, type 2 diabetes, heart disease and mental health conditions.
Companies issued statements emphasizing their support for public health collaboration, though some acknowledged litigation concerning policy implementation clarity. Researchers and public health officials emphasized that the volume and duration of litigation, combined with corporate opacity, indicates the lawsuits’ primary purpose extends beyond legal merit. Experts urged governments to proceed boldly with health measures, noting that delayed action risks prolonging preventable harm.
Article Attribution | Read More at Article Source
Article summary produced by Claude AI