Food Fight: Are Companies Liable for Injuries Related to UPFs?

Ultra-processed foods (UPFs) have recently become the focus of a national public health debate. Although there is no federal legal definition, a product is generally considered ultra-processed when it contains additive ingredients such as added sugars, fats, starches, and artificial colors or preservatives [1]. In a typical grocery store, around 75% of the supply is considered to be UPFs and comes in forms like sugary cereal, ready-to-eat meals, prepackaged snacks, and sliced baked goods [2]. In these aisles, it is difficult to ignore the flashy packaging and enticing messages. These marketing tactics, combined with the allegedly addictive substances within the products, are what Pennsylvania teenager Bryce Martinez claims led him to develop Type 2 diabetes and non-alcoholic fatty liver disease at only 16 years old. [3]

In Martinez v. Kraft Heinz Company, Inc., the plaintiff sought damages for his injuries against several major food companies, including Kraft Heinz, Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, General Mills, and Kellogg. [4] The complaint extensively references studies linking UPF consumption to an increased risk of cancer, cardiovascular disease, depression, and anxiety. Most notably, these studies show a correlation with the plaintiff’s own illnesses—Type 2 diabetes and non-alcoholic fatty liver disease. [5] It heavily emphasizes that UPFs cause unique health risks, independent of other factors. The plaintiff further alleges that the defendants deliberately engineered their foods to contain highly addictive ingredients and employed deceptive marketing tactics targeting children to increase consumption. [6]

This line of reasoning is not unfamiliar to the world of public health. The nature of this complaint mirrors arguments used in numerous lawsuits that sought to hold Big Tobacco accountable for deploying similar tactics. In one of the most influential settlements in public health, over 50 state and territory attorneys general signed the Master Settlement Agreement (MSA) with four of the largest tobacco companies, as a result of litigation aimed at recovering health care costs for smoking-related diseases. [7] This agreement sought to reduce smoking and its associated illnesses by restricting tobacco marketing specifically directed toward youth. To achieve this, it banned the use of cartoons in promotions, packaging, and labeling, and prohibited the brands’ names from appearing on sports-related events with a significant youth audience. [8] It also launched the Truth Initiative, a nonprofit public health organization dedicated to preventing youth nicotine addiction. [9] In Martinez, the plaintiff claims that it is no coincidence that UPFs are related to tobacco. Some of the dominant players in “Big Tobacco,” such as R.J. Reynolds and Phillip Morris, made significant shifts toward the food industry. Through a series of mergers and acquisitions, Reynolds acquired Nabisco, and Morris acquired General Foods and Kraft Inc., one of the defendants in Martinez. [10] The complaint further accuses that, as information, personnel, and research knowledge were transferred, these companies sought to apply the addictive qualities of cigarettes to new food products. [11] Specifically, Kraft and Phillip Morris invested heavily in neurological research and examining addictive components found in tobacco, later applying this research to UPF product development. [12] Though tobacco and UPFs originate from natural substances, both acquire addictive qualities through complex engineered processes designed to deliver precise doses of stimulating compounds. Tobacco relies on nicotine, while UPFs rely on refined carbohydrates and fats. The human brain reacts to these substances by producing feelings of pleasure and craving. [13] Not only do tobacco and UPFs share similar addictive mechanisms, but the complaint also alleges that defendants employ marketing strategies similar to those used by tobacco companies. Some of these tactics include using popular children's characters on product packaging and airing advertisements on children's television networks and websites. [14] At the time of this filing, the food industry was estimated to spend over $2 billion annually on advertising targeted at children. [15]

The court ruled that the plaintiff’s arguments were “woefully deficient” on the grounds that he failed to establish a specific causation between UPF consumption and his medical conditions. The plaintiff’s counsel was unable to show evidence that his diseases were caused solely by UPFs, independent of other factors like genetics or poor diet. Additionally, he failed to identify the specific products that allegedly caused his injury. [16] 

Although Martinez’s complaint was dismissed, the legal battle between food conglomerates and consumers is far from over. In a recent lawsuit, San Francisco City Attorney General David Chiu brought suit against some of the same defendants in Martinez. [17] This case signals a shift in the legal strategy, as it is the first lawsuit filed by the government entity rather than by individual plaintiffs. The first claim alleges that the defendants have engaged in fraudulent or deceptive practices that violate state unfair competition laws. The second is a claim for public nuisance, which refers to conduct that interferes with public health or safety and has historically been used in tobacco and opioid litigation. Both of the claims are the first to be utilized in UPF cases. Because individual plaintiffs previously had difficulty proving negligence as it relates specifically to their own health, these claims could prove to be successful. Regardless of success, Emily Broad Lieb, a Harvard Law Clinical Professor and food law expert, says there are several benefits to pursuing this suit, such as an increased collective awareness and pressure on companies to reach an agreement. [18] Regulations on tobacco required decades of litigation and advocacy, so it is possible that regulation of UPFs may follow a similar path. In October 2025, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed one of the first laws in the nation that legally defines UPFs as “any food or beverage that contains one or more ingredients with specified technical effects as defined by FDA regulations, and either (1) high amounts of saturated fat, sodium, or added sugar or (2) nonnutritive sweetener or other specified substances.” It further bans ultra-processed foods from school meals. [19] Although this law limits the definition to school-related purposes, establishing a formal definition may represent the first step toward broader regulations. In 2025 alone, states like Arizona, Wisconsin, Texas, and Florida have enacted laws of their own that curb UPFs. [20] Considering this trajectory, it may only be a matter of time before food companies face stronger regulatory oversight and increased legal accountability.

---

Sources

1. Carlos A. Monteiro et al., “Ultra-processed foods: what they are and how to identify them,” Public Health Nutrition 22, no. 5 (2019): 936–941, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10260459/.

2. Morgan Coulson, “Most of the Foods We Eat Are Ultra-Processed. Are They All Unhealthy?,” Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, November 10, 2025, https://publichealth.jhu.edu/2025/what-are-ultra-processed-foods.

3. Evan D. Montgomery, “Causation—Successful in Martinez v. Kraft Heinz—Is Just One of Many Ways to Defeat ‘Ultra-Processed Food’ Personal Injury Claims,” WLF Legal Pulse, September 9, 2025, Washington Legal Foundation, https://www.wlf.org/2025/09/09/wlf-legal-pulse/causation-successful-in-martinez-v-kraft-heinz-is-just-one-of-many-ways-to-defeat-ultra-processed-food-personal-injury-claims/.

4. Martinez v. Kraft Heinz Co. et al, No. 25-377 (2025).

5. Ibid. 

6. Ibid. 

7. “The Master Settlement Agreement,” National Association of Attorneys General, https://www.naag.org/our-work/naag-center-for-tobacco-and-public-health/the-master-settlement-agreement/.

8. Ibid. 

9. “Who We Are,” Truth Initiative, https://truthinitiative.org/who-we-are.

10. Martinez v. Kraft Heinz Co. et al, No. 25-377 (2025), pg. 24. 

11. Ibid, 27.

12. Ibid. 

13. Ashley N. Gearhardt, Kelly D. Brownell, and Allan M. Brandt, “From Tobacco to Ultraprocessed Food: How Industry Engineering Fuels the Epidemic of Preventable Disease,” Milbank Quarterly (February 2, 2026)

14. Martinez v. Kraft Heinz Co. et al, No. 25-377 (2025), pg. 58.

15. Brett Wilkins, NEWS: Sanders and Booker Take on Food and Beverage Industry with Legislation to Address Childhood Diabetes and Obesity Epidemics, U.S. Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor & Pensions, April 19, 2024; Blumenthal, DeLauro & Booker Introduce Bicameral Bill to Curb Unhealthy Food & Beverage Marketing Targeting Kids, U.S. Senate Office of Richard Blumenthal, Nov. 15, 2022.

16. Montgomery, “Causation—Successful in Martinez v. Kraft Heinz.” 

17. People of the State of California v. Kraft Heinz Co. et al, 26-183 (2026).

18. Scott Young, “The New Case Against Ultraprocessed Food,” Harvard Law Today, January 14, 2026, Harvard Law School, https://hls.harvard.edu/today/the-new-case-against-ultraprocessed-food/.

19. California Assembly Bill 1264 (2025-2026).

20. Steve Brody et al., “Ultra‑Processed Foods Face Rising Scrutiny: What New State Laws, FDA Actions, and Private Litigation Mean for Food Manufacturers in 2025–2026,” O’Melveny & Myers (Client Alert, November 18, 2025), https://www.omm.com/insights/alerts-publications/ultra-processed-foods-face-rising-scrutiny-what-new-state-laws-fda-actions-and-private-litigation-mean-for-food-manufacturers-in-2025-2026/.