Ultra-processed foods: the industry is multiplying legal challenges against public health policies

An investigation coordinated by Lighthouse Reports[1] and the Guardian[2], A study, in collaboration with university researchers and a media coalition across four continents, documents the systematic use of legal action by major food companies to challenge public policies aimed at combating ultra-processed foods (UPFs). Between 2010 and 2025, 239 lawsuits were identified in six countries (Mexico, Colombia, Brazil, the United States, the United Kingdom, and India), targeting nutritional labeling, regulations on advertising aimed at children, and the taxation of sugary or ultra-processed products. Several researchers cited in the study draw parallels with the litigation methods employed for decades by the tobacco industry to fight similar measures, while highlighting the common patterns of interference across all these sectors, whose activities have a significant impact on public health.

According to data compiled by research teams, eight manufacturers account for 38 of the lawsuits where the plaintiff could be identified: Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, Mondelēz, Kellogg's, Danone, Ferrero, Xignux, and Heartland Food Products Group. Mexico accounts for the majority of the lawsuits (193 out of a total of 239), primarily challenging regulations requiring a warning label on the front of food packaging; Colombia and Brazil follow with 18 and 17 cases respectively. Of all the cases resolved, approximately three-quarters resulted in a defeat for the plaintiff companies, but the cumulative duration of the proceedings amounts to nearly 600 years of litigation, significantly impacting the administrative and legal resources of the governments involved and leading to delays in the implementation of protective measures.

Latin America is the focus of most of the procedures

While Mexico, Colombia, and Brazil alone account for more than nine out of ten lawsuits, this situation stems not so much from any particular legal vulnerability in these countries, but rather from their pioneering role in regulating ultra-processed foods and sodas. Katherine Shats, a legal expert on infant nutrition at UNICEF, points out that Latin America was a global forerunner in adopting the first ambitious food environment policies, making it a testing ground for both public health innovation and industry resistance. In Mexico, companies argued in court that labeling regulations violated their constitutional rights and "demonized" their products. A local Pepsi bottler even argued that, in some rural areas, it was safer to consume sugary drinks than the available water—arguments largely rejected by the judges. In Colombia, most of the actions are constitutional appeals filed by individuals, but the investigation reveals that many of the plaintiffs were actually lawyers who had previously worked for the industry, and that their briefs echoed the arguments of the companies. The Colombian political context also illustrates the extent of the economic influence at stake: in 2022, while the creation of a health tax was being debated, manufacturers of sugary drinks and ultra-processed foods donated nearly €5.85 million to political parties, representing 40% of all donations recorded that year. In Brazil, appeals against the health agency ANVISA are mostly brought by trade associations representing Coca-Cola, Ferrero, Kellogg's, Mars, Mondelēz, Nestlé, and PepsiCo—a configuration which, according to the experts cited, allows the brands to remain aloof from litigation that could damage their image.

Melissa Mialon, a researcher at Inserm, notes that nutritional labeling on the front of packaging is the most attacked policy, precisely because it represents a first step opening the way to the classification of products according to their nutritional quality, then to their taxation and the regulation of their advertising.

Contrasting situations elsewhere in the world

In the United States, six lawsuits were identified, including one filed by the American Beverage Association against the sugary drink tax in Santa Cruz, California—a case that has so far been unsuccessful, with the courts ruling in favor of the city. The investigation notes a precedent: in the neighboring city of Watsonville, the same association had managed a few years earlier to block a similar tax proposal before its adoption. The investigation also reveals that the sugary drink industry has mobilized influential Black and Latino figures to amplify opposition to public health taxes within these communities. In the United Kingdom, only one lawsuit was identified: Kellogg's unsuccessfully challenged the British nutrition labeling system in 2022, a few weeks before Ferrero and its subsidiary Eat Natural also sent their own formal notices to the authorities. Chris van Tulleken, a professor at University College London, believes that the industry does not need to multiply legal challenges in the UK, given that regulations, largely shaped with industry participation over the past three decades, already include numerous exemptions. He speaks of a form of "total political paralysis" in the face of the threat of litigation. In continental Europe, pressure is exerted upstream rather than in the courts: manufacturers invoke the European Union's competition and internal market rules to create legal uncertainty, delaying the adoption of legislation and contributing to the weakening of a proposed European sugar tax. In India, the national food regulatory body has been developing a front-of-pack labeling system since 2014 but has not yet finalized it, citing a lack of consensus with the industry. Furthermore, influencers who have publicly compared the nutritional quality of certain products have been sued by the brands involved.

A method and tactics compared to those of tobacco

Several researchers draw a direct parallel with the strategies historically deployed and still used by the tobacco industry against anti-smoking legislation. Marion Nestle, a professor of nutrition at New York University, believes that food manufacturers are "following the tobacco industry's playbook to the letter." Phillip Baker, a researcher at the University of Sydney, observes that the sustained volume of lawsuits, the length of some proceedings, and the lack of transparency surrounding a substantial number of plaintiffs indicate that litigation functions as much as a tactic for deterrence and delaying action as it does as a genuine attempt to win a case. Katherine Shats points out that similar patterns were observed during the initial adoption of anti-smoking measures.

Beyond the legal dispute itself, the Guardian's investigation documents other forms of interference: lobbying campaigns that led British authorities to abandon a recommendation encouraging the sale of minimally processed foods; conflicts of interest within a panel of experts who concluded in 2024 that ultra-processed foods were "unfairly stigmatized," given that three of its five members had links with major manufacturers. A synthesis of scientific work published last year in The Lancet A study by 43 international researchers also links high consumption of ultra-processed foods to overeating, lower nutritional quality and increased exposure to potentially harmful chemicals and additives.

When contacted by the authors of the survey, Coca-Cola, Ferrero and Danone indicated that they favoured constructive dialogue with public authorities and supported public health objectives, without commenting on the details of the procedures undertaken; PepsiCo, Mondelēz, Kellogg's, Xignux and Heartland Food Products Group did not respond to the requests.

These observations align with a broader field of analysis in public health: the commercial determinants of health. This field examines how the economic, legal, and normative influence strategies of private actors shape the environment in which prevention policies are implemented. Tobacco, alcohol, fossil fuels, and ultra-processed foods share a common repertoire of actions in the face of regulation: challenging scientific data, funding favorable "expert opinions," lobbying, and legal recourse. The cumulative effect of these actions, regardless of the legal outcome, is to delay or weaken the implementation of public health policies.

©Generation Without Tobacco

AE

[1] Investigation, Big Food vs. The People, Lighthouse Reports, published July 22, 2026, accessed July 29, 2026

[2] Andrew Gregory, Thin Lei Win and Emmanuel Freudenthal, '‘If all else fails, sue': how ultra-processed food firms are using the courts to obstruct health rules, The Guardian, published on July 22, 2026, accessed on July 29, 2026