WASHINGTON (DTN) -- San Francisco officials on Tuesday announced a "first-of-its kind" lawsuit against the country's biggest manufacturers of processed foods.

For farmers, such lawsuits could put a target on high fructose corn syrup sales or other ingredients used for sweeteners or to help keep food fresh for store shelves.

The 64-page suit, filed in California Superior Court, alleges the named companies sold and promoted the foods even though they knew there were dangers to public health. The proliferation of such foods has led to higher health care costs around the country because of several serious health conditions.

The suit was filed against Kraft Heinz Co., Mondelez International, Post Holdings, The Coca-Cola Co., PepsiCo, General Mills, Nestle USA, Kellogg, Mars Inc. and ConAgra Brands.

In a half-hour news conference, David Chiu, the San Francisco city attorney, said he experienced the addictive nature of ultraprocessed foods himself when his mother bribed him with Pringles to take swimming lessons.

Chiu said the large-scale promotion of ultraprocessed foods began when tobacco companies bought food companies and used the same techniques to sell foods as they had used for tobacco. Chiu also cited the recent case of a Campbell's executive's comment that the company made ultraprocessed foods for poor people.

At the news conference, Chiu was backed by representatives of the Department of Health, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, law firms that are involved in the suit and Kim Newell Green, a pediatrician and professor at the University of California, San Francisco.

Newell Green said she has fought the consumption of ultraprocessed foods in her medical practice and her own home but said she is losing the battle because children find the foods "exciting."

In a state that has faced its share of battles against the Trump administration, San Francisco's lawsuit could find some support from administration officials and others who have criticized junk food as part of its "Make America Healthy Again" agenda.

Alleging the companies have engaged in deceptive advertising that violated California's Unfair Competition Law (UCL) and public nuisance statute, the suit seeks to halt deceptive marketing of ultraprocessed foods and would require companies to take actions to deal with the effects of their marketing such foods. The suit also seeks an award and civil penalties.

Sarah Gallo, senior vice president of product policy for the Consumer Brands Association, said in a statement, "The makers of America's trusted household brands support Americans in making healthier choices and enhancing product transparency. That's why food and beverage manufacturers continue to introduce new product options that include increased protein and fiber, reduced sugars and sodium, and no synthetic color additives. There is currently no agreed-upon scientific definition of ultraprocessed foods, and attempting to classify foods as unhealthy simply because they are processed, or demonizing food by ignoring its full nutrient content, misleads consumers and exacerbates health disparities. Companies adhere to the rigorous evidence-based safety standards established by the FDA to deliver safe, affordable and convenient products that consumers depend on every day. Americans deserve facts based on sound science in order to make the best choices for their health."

Responding to Gallo's statement, Chiu said he believes there is a "clear understanding" of what constitutes ultraprocessed foods, and he looks forward to having a discussion about ultraprocessed foods in court.

Chiu said the city is bringing the suit at this time because there have been more and more studies that have shown the impact of ultraprocessed foods.

DTN Ag Policy Editor Chris Clayton contributed to this report.

Jerry Hagstrom can be reached at jhagstrom@nationaljournal.com

Follow him on social platform X @hagstromreport

(c) Copyright 2025 DTN, LLC. All rights reserved.