The Guardian can reveal that the world’s largest ultra-processed food companies have filed numerous lawsuits challenging government policies aimed at tackling unhealthy diets. Ultra-processed food (UPF) is linked to harm in every major organ system of the human body and poses a serious threat to global health. Consumption is rising worldwide, and UPF now makes up as much as half the average diet in many countries, including the UK, the US, and Australia.
Governments around the world have taken steps to fight back and protect the health of children and adults. These measures include front-of-pack warning labels, restrictions on marketing unhealthy products to make them less appealing, and taxes on junk food.
Publicly, the world’s biggest UPF companies say they support these policies, are committed to helping consumers make informed choices, and want to be part of the solution. But an investigation by the Guardian, in partnership with academics, the non-profit newsroom Lighthouse Reports, and a coalition of media partners across four continents, found that many of these same companies are taking governments to court to overturn, weaken, or delay the policies.
The investigation found that from 2010 to 2025, a total of 235 lawsuits were filed against health policies targeting UPF in Mexico, Colombia, Brazil, the US, and the UK. It is not clear who is behind every lawsuit, but three-quarters were filed by UPF manufacturers or trade associations representing them. Some of the corporations involved in these legal cases, which can now be revealed for the first time, asked courts to keep their names hidden.
Of the cases filed by companies where the plaintiff could be identified, 38% were brought by eight parent corporations: Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, Mondelēz, Kellogg’s, Danone, Ferrero, Xignux, and Heartland Food Products Group. Dozens of cases are still ongoing. Of those that have been resolved, three-quarters were lost by the food giants. But the investigation found that some of these legal battles lasted a total of nearly 600 years in court.
Some of the lawsuits that ultimately failed still managed to delay the adoption of important public health policies for years, while also tying up government and public health officials in complex and expensive legal fights. In the meantime, experts say, these lawsuits are prolonging the growing global public health crisis and costing countries billions in legal and healthcare costs.
While governments are being sued over policies aimed at tackling unhealthy diets, the amount of UPF consumed continues to rise, contributing to increasing cases of obesity, type 2 diabetes, heart disease, mental health problems, and other conditions.
Marion Nestle, a professor of nutrition, food studies, and public health at New York University, said the world’s biggest UPF firms would “not fight so hard” if policies to reduce consumption of their products were ineffective. “The lawsuits tell us that public health measures reduce sales of unhealthful products,” she said.
Although most cases were eventually won by governments, experts said the intense litigation by UPF companies suggested other goals: slowing down the implementation of laws, limiting the desire and ability of countries to adopt other public health measures, and discouraging regulators. Nestle said these tactics mirrored those used by the tobacco industry for decades. “Food companies are well trained. They follow the tobacco industry playbook to the letter. When all else fails, sue,” she added.
Litigation by tobacco companies is well documented. They have repeatedly sued governments over laws requiring that colorful, branded cigarette packs be replaced with plain ones displaying prominent health warnings, including graphic images of rotting teeth, diseased organs, and cancerous tumors. Although the tobacco lawsuits were also mostly unsuccessful, they still caused delays and costs.When they succeeded, they placed enormous pressure, workloads, and costs on governments trying to improve public health.
“The UPF industry appears to be adopting the same strategy,” said Phillip Baker, an associate professor at the University of Sydney who studies food systems and the growing global impact of ultra-processed foods (UPF).
“The UPF industry and its affiliates have consistently challenged front-of-pack warning labels, marketing restrictions, and taxes through the courts, especially in the years right after each policy was introduced.
“The fact that courts have upheld public health regulations in most resolved cases is encouraging. But the ongoing number of lawsuits, the years-long duration of some cases, and the lack of transparency around many corporate plaintiffs all suggest that litigation is used just as much—if not more—to delay, deter, and limit policies as it is to overturn them.”
Get in touch
Contact Andrew Gregory about this story
If you have something to share about this story, you can contact Andrew using one of the following methods:
Secure Messaging in the Guardian app
The Guardian app has a tool for sending tips about stories. Messages are end-to-end encrypted and hidden within the routine activity that every Guardian mobile app performs. This prevents anyone from knowing you are communicating with us, let alone what you are saying.
If you don’t already have the Guardian app, download it (iOS/Android) and go to the menu. Select ‘Secure Messaging’.
Email
If you don’t need a high level of security or confidentiality, you can email andrew.gregory@theguardian.com
SecureDrop
If you can safely use the Tor network without being observed or monitored, you can send messages and documents to the Guardian via our SecureDrop platform.
Finally, our guide at theguardian.com/tips lists several ways to contact us securely and discusses the pros and cons of each.
Show more
UPF is made using industrial methods and ingredients not usually found in shops. It often contains additives like flavourings, colourings, or emulsifiers to make it look more appealing and taste better.
Evidence reviewed by 43 of the world’s leading experts and published in The Lancet last year suggested that diets high in UPF are linked to overeating, poor nutritional quality, and higher exposure to harmful chemicals and additives.
Because they are often cheap, convenient, and easy to find, they are quickly replacing fresh food in diets across every continent. In response, countries are increasingly adopting policies designed to reduce the harmful effects of UPF.
But these measures have faced strong resistance. UPF companies are using a range of aggressive tactics to boost consumption and block regulation. These tactics include lobbying policymakers, creating public-private partnerships, and influencing scientific debate.
Last year, the Guardian revealed that the UK government dropped new guidance urging shops to promote minimally processed and nutritious food after a lobbying campaign by UPF companies.
In 2024, the Guardian exposed how three out of five scientists on an expert panel that suggested UPF was being unfairly demonised had ties to the world’s largest manufacturers of these products.
In the first multi-country analysis of its kind, the Guardian and other media outlets worked with researchers from the Robert and Ethel Kennedy Human Rights Centre, the University of Sydney, the University of São Paulo, and the University of Caldas to investigate the scale of the UPF industry’s legal pushback.
The investigation identified 235 lawsuits filed over policies targeting UPF in Mexico, Colombia, Brazil, the US, and the UK between 2010 and 2025. Labelling on food items was the policy governments were most sued over, followed by taxes on junk food and marketing restrictions.
That is not surprising, according to Melissa Mialon, an associate professor at Inserm, the French national institute of health and medical research.
She said: “The industry doesn’t want fFront-of-pack labeling is a first step toward classifying products based on how healthy they are. Once that’s in place, it becomes easier to tax them or ban their marketing, and things like that.
The investigation found that most lawsuits were filed in Mexico (193), Colombia (18), and Brazil (17).
“This makes sense because Latin America has been a global leader in adopting some of the first strong food environment policies. That makes it a key testing ground for both public health innovation and industry resistance,” said Katherine Shats, a legal specialist in child nutrition at UNICEF.
Mexico is one of several countries that have explicitly recommended avoiding or limiting ultra-processed foods (UPFs) or “highly processed foods.”
“We saw similar patterns with tobacco control laws. When Australia started introducing plain packaging and other effective tobacco control measures, it faced many lawsuits and challenges,” Shats said.
Chris van Tulleken, author of Ultra-Processed People and a professor of infection and global health at University College London, says government officials are “terrified” of lawsuits from food companies. (Photograph: TT News Agency/Alamy)
The investigation found six lawsuits in the US and one in the UK. Van Tulleken said, “The food industry doesn’t need to bother bringing legal action in the UK very often because our regulations are full of loopholes and exemptions.”
“This is partly because, for the last three decades, the industry has helped design the rules that regulate unhealthy food. So obviously, these regulations don’t work.”
Van Tulleken added that the UK’s policy environment is so deeply tied to food companies that there is “complete policy paralysis” due to the threat of litigation. “People in the government are terrified of these lawsuits.”
“Ultimately, governments need to be bold,” said Shats. “These measures are about protecting children, safeguarding food systems, and addressing a food environment that is making entire populations sick.”
“Delaying action because of fear of lawsuits risks prolonging preventable harm, which is much harder and more costly to fix in the long run.”
A Coca-Cola spokesperson said: “We believe public health challenges are best addressed through collaboration among governments, public health authorities, the private sector, and civil society. We engage constructively on topics affecting our business and respect the role each stakeholder plays in advancing public health goals.”
A Ferrero spokesperson said the company supports public health goals aimed at reducing obesity and diet-related disease. They added: “Where Ferrero has engaged with different authorities and regulators, it has been about clarity around policy implementation—such as inconsistencies in how similar products are treated under the same rule—rather than opposition to public health goals.”
A Danone spokesperson said: “We believe businesses should play a positive role, alongside governments, public health institutions, and other stakeholders, in addressing public health challenges. We are committed to open dialogue and constructive engagement with policymakers around the world.”
PepsiCo, Mondelēz, Kellogg’s, Xignux, and Heartland Food Products Group did not respond to requests for comment.
This investigation was produced in collaboration with Lighthouse Reports, Agência Pública (Brazil), Cuestión Pública (Colombia), Follow the Money (the Netherlands), Il Fatto Alimentare (Italy), L’Espresso (Italy), O Joio e O Trigo (Brazil), Quinto Elemento Lab (Mexico), Santa Cruz Local (US), and The Wire (India).
Frequently Asked Questions
Here is a list of FAQs about how ultraprocessed food companies use lawsuits to block health regulations written in a natural tone with clear answers
BeginnerLevel Questions
1 What does If all else fails sue mean in this context
It means that when governments try to pass laws to make food healthier big food companies often use lawsuits as a last resort to stop those laws from happening
2 Why would a food company sue the government
They sue because the new regulations could hurt their profits For example if a law requires a warning label on sugary cereal people might buy less of it The company argues the law is unfair or illegal
3 What kind of health regulations are we talking about
Things like taxes on sugary drinks bans on certain ingredients mandatory warning labels on junk food or rules about advertising to children
4 How common is this tactic
Its becoming very common As more countries try to fight obesity and diabetes food companies are increasingly filing lawsuits to delay or kill these public health laws
5 Who pays for these lawsuits
The companies pay for their own lawyers but the government has to use taxpayer money to defend the law in court So even if the company loses it costs the public money
AdvancedLevel Questions
6 What legal arguments do food companies typically use
They often use four main arguments
Free speech They claim warning labels or advertising bans violate their right to commercial speech
Trade barriers They argue the law unfairly restricts international trade
Overreach They claim the government doesnt have enough scientific proof to justify the regulation
Unconstitutionality They argue the law is vague or takes away their property rights
7 Can you give a realworld example of a company suing over a health law
Yes In 2015 Mexico passed a tax on sugary drinks CocaCola and other companies sued claiming the tax was unconstitutional They lost but the lawsuit delayed implementation and created uncertainty
8 Do these lawsuits ever succeed
Sometimes In 2014 the US soda industry sued to block New York Citys ban on large sugary drinks A court struck it down calling it arbitrary and capric
