Ultraprocessed Foods Face Scrutiny From Scientists, Consumers & Courts

A surge of state-level food laws and industry-backed lawsuits highlight the growing battle over ingredient transparency and health warnings.gettyA 2025 CNN article highlights a potential health scourge that’s likely already lurking in your kitchen cabinets — and may have driven substantial gains in your long-term investment portfolio.Associated with rising rates of global obesity, chronic health conditions, and premature death, ultraprocessed foods (UPFs) — a still loosely defined category that covers staples from bread, to soda, as well as cookies, chips, and more — have long faced scrutiny from critics at UNICEF and the World Health Organization (WHO). In a call for scientists worldwide to study the health effects of UPFs, the WHO referred to rising UPF consumption as “a systemic threat to public health.”Ultraprocessed Foods, High Financial StakesCNN also claims popular UPF products paid out more than half of the $2.9 trillion distributions food and beverages corporations issued to shareholders between 1962 and 2021.The CNN article goes on to suggest that the high profit margins associated with UPFs have funded lobbying against all kinds of consumer protections, from food warning labels to restrictions on advertising to children. Doing so may have helped the sector avoid regulations and served to counter the conclusions of critics like Carlos Augusto Monteiro, University of São Paulo’s professor emeritus of nutrition and public health, from gaining traction. He authored a 2017 research paper arguing that “the displacement of minimally processed foods and freshly prepared dishes and meals by ultra-processed products is associated with unhealthy dietary nutrient profiles and several diet-related non-communicable diseases.”With scrutiny of UPFs broadening, but consumption rates and profit margins high, it’s anyone’s guess as to when or how regulations might reshape the market and impact the bottom line of producers and investors. However, it may not be any coincidence that UPF brands like Coca-Cola (-2.25%), Kraft (-8.4%), Nestle (-8.2%) and Post Holdings (-11.5%) have lost value over the past six months.MORE FOR YOUProsecuting UPFsThe simmering conflict between nutritional scientists and UPF producers sets the stage for a monumental development that may bring things to a boil.On Tuesday, Dec. 2, 2025, the city attorney for San Francisco filed the first government lawsuit against UPF producers. The city’s case claims that leading F&B companies like Kraft Heinz, Nestle, and Coca-Cola, among others, knowingly “took food and made it unrecognizable and harmful to the body,” thereby, “engineering a public health crisis,” and exposing consumers to chronic illnesses like Type 2 diabetes, cancer, and other forms of chronic illness.The city’s case centers on the burden to San Francisco in covering the cost of treatment associated with residents suffering from diseases caused by the consumption of UPFs. In bringing the case to court, the city is seeking to regulate the marketing of UPFs and recover damages to offset certain healthcare costs. Legal analysts are drawing immediate comparisons to other high-profile public-health litigation, most notably those brought against tobacco and opioid producers. But, with UPFs so ubiquitous, some are asking if, like large financial institutions after 2008, these producers may be “too big to fail” or simply too difficult to prosecute.After all, tobacco and opioids are both easily definable and already subject to strict regulation. Meanwhile, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has not yet landed on an official definition for UPFs.Where We Go From HereIt’s too early to tell how the city of San Francisco’s case will take shape. But we have seen some suggestion of the legislative and industry response to the regulation of UPFs.

The Better Food Disclosure Act was introduced in Nov. 2025. It proposes reforms to the FDA’s process of designating ingredients as “generally recognized as safe,” but does not overwrite or otherwise affect state level laws restricting or banning certain ingredients. That’s important because 108 such laws have been proposed across the U.S. in 2025 alone.Shifting consumer trends toward health-focused brands could threaten established UPF giants as legal and political pressures mount.gettyThe industry appears to be gearing up for a fight. In response to the patchwork of state-level laws complicating the production and distribution of food products, a lobbying group called Americans for Ingredient Transparency emerged to advocate for unifying regulation at the federal level. And, on Dec. 5, four food-industry trade groups launched a suit of their own. The associations joined forces to challenge a Texas law, passed in June 2025, requiring warning labels on products containing 44 ingredients, including artificial dyes and other additives. The industry groups claim that the Texas law is inconsistent with federal regulation, amounts to a violation of free speech by imposing disclosures, and suggests that labeling efforts would raise production costs unnecessarily.The FDA still lacks a clear definition for ultraprocessed foods, complicating legal action and regulatory efforts nationwide.gettyIt’s possible though that even energetic lobbying and litigation efforts may prove fruitless in the face of a health department sympathetic to UPF critics. Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Secretary of Health and Human Services, has long spoken critically of modern food industry practices and, in 2024, posted a video on the X platform describing ultraprocessed foods as “driving the obesity epidemic.”Political and legal pressures facing producers of ultraprocessed foods are the latest headwind, but shifting tastes signal that consumers may be moving away from ubiquitous UPF brands.Shifting Consumer ChoiceFor years, health-conscious consumers have driven an increase in the market share of wellness-oriented food brands. According to data analysts Dunnhumby, the trend toward higher-quality, higher-priced grocery won’t abate anytime soon. That’s good news for health-oriented retail and F&B brands, as well as the consumers, primarily younger shoppers, who increasingly demand products that account for gut health, sleep quality, and other health considerations.Looking AheadThe history of tobacco regulation and litigation may offer some idea as to how legal challenges relating to UPFs may unfold. Scientists initially proposed a link between smoking and cancer in the 1920s. The first liability lawsuit was brought by a cancer victim in the 1950s but was later dropped. A Surgeon General report linking smoking to cancer was released in 1964 and many further reports on smoking and health complications followed. Still, it wasn’t until Mississippi — the first state to file a lawsuit seeking to recoup Medicaid funds — settled for $3.6 billion that states began seeking recompense from the industry en masse.Is San Francisco’s case the Mississippi moment for UPFs? We will keep a close watch and let you know what develops.