In a significant legal action, San Francisco’s attorney’s office has brought a major lawsuit against Kraft Heinz and a number of other food giants, including Mars, Pepsi, and General Mills, in a case titled California v. Kraft Heinz. This lawsuit illuminates issues surrounding the health impacts of ultraprocessed foods, revealing a level of harm that extends far beyond what has received attention in mainstream discourse. The details uncovered in this complaint provide a startling look into the predatory practices of these companies.
I highly recommend reading the filing, which is linked at the end of this post.1 It may change your perception of products like Cheetos forever, although it also explains why you might find them irresistible. One striking section discusses criteria for addictive substances set forth by the Surgeon General in 1988, illustrating how these products meet all three criteria: they can provoke compulsive use, affect brain function, and reinforce consumption habits. This has led to 14% to 20% of American adults becoming addicted, with 20% to 50% of gastric bypass patients still overeating ultraprocessed foods even after serious surgical interventions.2
We will explore below why this lawsuit is particularly formidable. San Francisco’s track record in health-related lawsuits, including considerable settlements in tobacco and opioid cases, strengthens their position here.
The complaint details how the techniques of Big Tobacco have been repackaged to transform food into a lucrative enterprise marked by exploitation. RJ Reynolds began targeting food in the 1960s to leverage its flavoring expertise, with Hawaiian Punch as its first notable product. By 1985, partnerships with Nabisco were flourishing, followed by Philip Morris purchasing General Foods and Kraft in the late 1980s. A 2006 article summarized this strategy:
112. Philip Morris’ Director of Applied Research succinctly expressed the company’s acquisition philosophy: “control all of the pleasure drugs that are not regulated.”
113. R.J. Reynolds and Philip Morris did not treat their food brands as independent but integrated them swiftly into their tobacco operations.
114. This integration facilitated a systematic exchange of personnel, knowledge, and technology from tobacco to the food and beverage sectors during the ‘80s, ‘90s, and 2000s. Big Food benefitted from this reservoir of expertise…
120. The goal of this research was not to create more flavorful foods but to manipulate brain functions to bypass the body’s natural defenses against addiction and control food intake.
121. Dr. [Philip Morris scientist Frank] Gullotta noted in 1990 that taste, smell, and touch “don’t matter” if there are no effects on the brain. Consumption of ultraprocessed foods is pleasurable only due to their impact on brain chemistry.
The complaint cites ongoing research efforts by companies like Nestlé, Kellogg, ConAgra, and Mars, which aim to stimulate pleasurable brain responses while undermining natural signals of fullness.
Moreover, these companies cannot claim ignorance regarding the tobacco-like dangers presented by their ultraprocessed products. The complaint opens with a 1999 appeal from Michael Mudd, a former VP at Kraft Heinz, urging industry leaders to change their habits regarding the exploitation of these harmful foods. It emphasizes a critical meeting among major food CEOs in April 1999, where they were briefed on the severe public health consequences of their products, including 300,000 excess deaths annually and overwhelming public health costs exceeding $100 billion:
200. In December 1953, chief executives of leading tobacco companies met covertly in New York to counteract negative studies linking smoking to lung cancer. This led to decades of deceit and associated fatalities.
201. Similarly, in April 1999, the executives from defendants met secretly in Minneapolis, aware of their actions’ public health ramifications, yet they chose to ignore them.
202. Like Big Tobacco, Big Food continued its practices, spending years misinforming the public.
The complaint also outlines the strong ties between food engineering and public health issues. Key points include:
10. This case does not merely challenge foods deemed “unhealthy.” It highlights food products designed with concealed health risks that are colorful, flavorful, and addictive. These products disrupt our body’s natural functions, and the defendants—massive conglomerates—designed, manufactured, marketed, and sold these foods with full knowledge of their dangers.
49. Ultraprocessed foods (UPF) differ fundamentally from traditional diets. They result from mechanized processes combining cheap ingredients with various enhancers and additives that have little-to-no culinary purpose.
50. UPF consists of formulations created through industrial processes using ingredients mostly intended for exclusive commercial use.
51. Typical UPF ingredients either have rare culinary applications or contain additives that enhance marketability and palatability…
52. The final product involves industrial techniques (such as extrusion, molding, hydrogenation) that alter the chemical composition of UPF, methods unfamiliar to most American consumers.
As previously noted in lectures by a professor at the Ohio State University, hydrogenated fats are so far removed from natural food that even cockroaches will not consume them.
71. Ultraprocessing undermines the nutrient balance humans are naturally adapted to. Evidence suggests that our metabolism struggles to handle nutrient distributions that greatly deviate from natural food, known as the “food matrix.” In simple terms, UPF disrupts bodily signals of satiety.
72. Research indicates that the consumption of UPF significantly raises the risk of numerous serious health conditions, including various cancers, cardiovascular diseases, Type 2 diabetes, and mental health issues.
74. Alarmingly, many ingredients in UPF have not been independently vetted for safety, with over 10,000 new chemicals introduced into our food supply to facilitate UPF production.
75. Few have undergone long-term testing for chronic safety, and many may be harmful even at low levels.
The lawsuit thoroughly details how large corporations are targeting children, particularly from minority backgrounds, to create lifelong dependency on their products. The resulting public health crisis has contributed to a marked increase in conditions like “adult onset” diabetes and fatty liver disease in the pediatric population.
Given the comprehensive nature of this complaint, it seems implausible that the defendants wouldn’t consider settling, especially if they cannot succeed in preliminary motions to block the discovery process.
Considering the 1999 industry conference where executives acknowledged public health harm yet continued practices prioritizing profit—echoing the tactics of Big Tobacco—it’s reasonable to speculate that internal documents reveal a treasure trove of incriminating information. Just as the reveal that Monsanto required workers to use protective gear when handling glyphosate, despite not warning the public, solidified the jury’s stance against them.
Recent controversies, such as a Campbell’s executive caught labeling their products as “highly processed food for poor people,” further compound the scrutiny on the food industry.
As the Los Angeles Times highlights, this lawsuit could potentially trigger a wave of related litigation:
It is uncertain how successful the suit will be, but San Francisco’s city attorney’s office has a history of groundbreaking health-related legal victories. Their past successes include a $539 million settlement from tobacco companies and a $120 million settlement from opioid manufacturers.
With governmental support unlikely, the future of this case will largely depend on the legal arguments presented. As we await developments, it may be worth reflecting on our dietary choices—perhaps a handful of popcorn would be a healthier choice than a bag of Doritos.
____
1 Special thanks to reader Bugs for their excellent compression software that enabled manageable file sizes for WordPress.
2 A striking revelation:
89. Remarkably, rodents will risk electric shocks to consume UPF over other calorie sources. In fact, they demonstrate greater resistance to shock while pursuing industrially produced sweets compared to pursuing methamphetamine. Non-UPF do not evoke similar responses in either humans or rodents.
san-francisco-v-kraft-heinz-complaint
