A victory for UPF makers; a defeat for consumers. Mega-UPF producers named in a recent lawsuit claiming their products caused disease have succeeded in having the claim thrown out. But there’s still another suit in the system…
Plaintiff Brian Martinez claimed claimed Ultra-Processed Food (UPF) products caused his type 2 dia-betes and nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. And that the UPF makers had failed to warn consumers of the dangers their products present…
‘Failed to meet his burden’
But a judge ruled he hadn’t provided enough evidence to back his accusation. And Martinez’s suit was permanently quashed, meaning he can’t amend it and refile it. He’d already done that once, after another judge said the same thing. But didn’t put a lid on the action.
In his dismissal, the judge said Martinez’s approach of simply listing 176 UPF products and ingred-ients he had consumed over his lifetime wasn’t sufficient to prove they caused his medical condit-ions. But the judge also said the suit, “raises serious concerns about the UPF industry and its effects on children’s health.”
“The dismissal is another court win for the packaged food industry as it battles a wave of litigation and state laws centered on the alleged dangers of ultraprocessed ingredients,” a recent Food Drive report notes. “Over the past year, manufacturers have also successfully blocked labeling laws in Texas and an artificial dye ban in West Virginia.”
The National Association Manufacturers lauded the Martinez ruling, saying the suit was, “a misguided effort to weaponize the tort system against food and beverage manufacturers.”
But there’s more…
Literally. Another lawsuit against many of the same defendants is still working its way trough the courts. But observers say the defeat of the Martinez suit bodes ill for it, too.
The City of San Francisco has filed the first government lawsuit against the UPF industry.
City Attorney David Chiu said, in a news release, “Food conglomerates [have] flooded the country with addictive ultra-processed foods with little nutritional value, knowing they would make Americans sick.”
This in spite of protestations from the industry that their products are not harmful. And recently, major players such as Coca-Cola and Pepsi have been promoting what they call healthy innovations in their beverage and snack products.
Science supports claims
Recent scientific studies support the claims of plaintiffs like Martinez, that UPFs cause or aggravate a wide range of common conditions and diseases. But that wouldn’t have helped Martinez win his suit. The judge made it clear that his action was dismissed because his evidence didn’t prove that UPFs caused his specific, individual illnesses.
My take
It doesn’t appear that any lawsuit against UPF makers brought by any individual will get any further than Martinez’s. For the same reasons.
But the San Francisco suit promises to be framed in much different terms. Hopefully, it will rely more on the new science that presents hard evidence of the harm UPFs do to folks of all ages and walks of life…
~ Maggie J.