Ultra-processed food companies use courts to block health rules

The world’s largest companies that produce ultra-processed foods (UPFs) have filed many lawsuits challenging government policies designed to address unhealthy diets. UPFs are linked to damage in nearly every part of the human body and represent a serious danger to global health. Consumption of these foods is increasing worldwide, making up as much as half of the average diet in many countries, including the UK, the US, and Australia.

To protect the health of their citizens, governments globally have introduced measures to combat the rise of UPFs. These measures include warning labels on the front of food packaging, restrictions on advertising unhealthy products to make them less appealing, and taxes on junk food.

Publicly, the biggest UPF companies state they support these policies, are dedicated to helping consumers make informed decisions, and want to be part of the solution to health problems. However, an extensive investigation by The Guardian, in partnership with academics and other news organizations, discovered that many of these same companies are using the courts to challenge, weaken, or postpone these health regulations.

The investigation revealed that between 2010 and 2025, a total of 235 lawsuits were filed against governments in Mexico, Colombia, Brazil, the US, and the UK concerning health policies targeting UPFs. While the specific entity behind every lawsuit is not always clear, three-quarters were initiated by UPF manufacturers or their representative trade groups. Some corporations involved even requested that courts keep their names confidential.

Among the cases where the company initiating the lawsuit could be identified, eight major corporations accounted for 38% of the legal actions. These include Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, Mondelēz, Kellogg’s, Danone, Ferrero, Xignux, and Heartland Food Products Group. Although many of these legal battles are still ongoing, and most of the resolved cases were lost by the food companies, the duration of some lawsuits has amounted to nearly 600 years in court collectively.

Some of these unsuccessful lawsuits managed to delay the implementation of important public health policies for years. They also consumed significant time and resources from government officials and public health experts involved in complex and costly legal proceedings. Experts suggest that these tactics continue to worsen the growing global public health crisis, leading to billions in legal and healthcare expenses for countries. Meanwhile, the consumption of UPFs continues to rise, contributing to increased rates of obesity, type 2 diabetes, heart disease, and mental health issues.

Marion Nestle, a professor at New York University, commented that the food companies would not contest so vigorously if the policies were ineffective. She stated that the lawsuits demonstrate that public health measures can reduce the sales of unhealthy products. Experts believe that beyond winning or losing cases, the intensive litigation by UPF companies serves other purposes: slowing down the enforcement of laws, reducing the willingness and ability of countries to introduce further public health measures, and intimidating regulatory bodies.

This strategy is similar to tactics used by the tobacco industry for decades. According to Nestle, food companies are well-prepared and follow the tobacco industry’s approach closely, resorting to legal action when other methods fail. The tobacco industry has a history of suing governments over laws that mandated plain packaging for cigarettes and prominent health warnings. Although these lawsuits were often unsuccessful, they placed immense stress and financial burdens on governments attempting to improve public health.

Phillip Baker, an associate professor studying food systems, noted that the UPF industry seems to be adopting the same strategy. He observed that the industry and its associates have consistently challenged front-of-pack warning labels, marketing restrictions, and taxes through legal channels, particularly in the period immediately after a new policy is introduced. While the courts have largely upheld public health regulations in most concluded cases, the ongoing volume of lawsuits, the lengthy duration of some cases, and the secrecy surrounding many corporate plaintiffs suggest that litigation serves significantly to delay, deter, and restrict policy implementation, perhaps even more than to overturn it.

UPFs are manufactured using industrial processes and ingredients not commonly found in typical grocery stores. They often contain additives like artificial flavourings, colourings, or emulsifiers to enhance their appearance and taste. Extensive research reviewed by leading global experts and published in The Lancet indicates that diets high in UPFs are associated with overeating, poor nutritional content, and increased exposure to harmful chemicals and additives. Due to their affordability, convenience, and widespread availability, UPFs are increasingly replacing fresh foods in diets across all continents. In response, nations are increasingly implementing policies to mitigate the negative health impacts of UPFs.

These public health measures have encountered strong opposition. UPF corporations employ various aggressive tactics to maintain consumption and prevent regulation. These include lobbying policymakers, establishing public-private partnerships, and influencing scientific discussions. For instance, a previous Guardian report revealed that the UK government abandoned new guidance encouraging shops to promote healthier foods after lobbying from UPF companies. Another investigation exposed that a significant portion of scientists on an expert panel questioning the negative portrayal of UPFs had connections to major manufacturers of these products.

In a comprehensive multi-country analysis, The Guardian and its media partners collaborated with researchers to examine the extent of the UPF industry’s legal challenges. The investigation identified 235 lawsuits targeting UPF policies in Mexico, Colombia, Brazil, the US, and the UK between 2010 and 2025. The most common policy challenged through lawsuits was food labelling, followed by taxes on junk food and marketing restrictions. Melissa Mialon, an associate professor, explained that the industry opposes front-of-pack labelling because it represents a first step towards classifying products by their healthiness, which could then lead to easier taxation and marketing bans.

The majority of lawsuits were filed in Mexico (193), followed by Colombia (18) and Brazil (17). This concentration in Latin America is understandable, as the region has been a pioneer in adopting strong food policies, making it a key testing ground for both public health innovation and industry resistance. Mexico is one of several countries that have specifically advised against or limited the consumption of UPFs.

Katherine Shats, a legal specialist in child nutrition, noted similar patterns with tobacco control laws, where Australia faced numerous lawsuits when introducing plain packaging and other regulations. There were fewer lawsuits in the US (six) and the UK (one). According to Chris van Tulleken, an associate professor and author, the UK food industry faces fewer legal challenges because the regulations are full of loopholes. He suggests this is partly because for the past three decades, the industry has influenced the creation of regulations for unhealthy foods, making them less effective.

Van Tulleken described the UK policy environment as being so heavily influenced by food companies that there is a complete halt in policy development due to the threat of legal action, with government officials reportedly fearing these lawsuits. Shats emphasized the need for governments to be courageous, stating that these measures are crucial for protecting children, food systems, and public health. She warned that delaying action out of fear of litigation risks prolonging harm that will be much harder and more expensive to address in the long run.

A spokesperson for Coca-Cola stated that public health challenges are best tackled through collaboration between governments, health authorities, the private sector, and civil society, and that the company engages constructively on issues affecting its business. Ferrero’s spokesperson mentioned that they support public health goals related to reducing obesity and diet-related diseases, and that their engagement with regulators has focused on clarifying policy implementation rather than opposing public health objectives. A Danone spokesperson affirmed their belief that businesses should play a positive role alongside governments and institutions in addressing public health challenges and are committed to open dialogue. PepsiCo, Mondelēz, Kellogg’s, Xignux, and Heartland Food Products Group did not provide a comment.