The anti-UPF advocates are determined to make processed foods manufacturers pay for the damage they’ve done to the US population. A class action lawsuit is seeking (US)$1 billion in damages from 12 makers of UPFs for ‘tortious and unlawful conduct’…
Anti-UPF crusaders just won’t give up. And that’s a good thing. Last year. A class-action lawsuit was filed against a long list of food processors and manufacturers claiming their products caused widespread and deadly health issues among consumers. But that one was thrown out on a matter of ‘focus’…
One more time…
Now, another suit has just been filed which avoids the pitfall the first fell into. The judge in that case, last fall, said the suit relied too heavily on the addictive nature of Ultra-Processed Foods (UPFs), and not on the actual health issues they cause.
The new suit focuses instead on actual harm done by UPFs. The example plaintiff, Olivia Kreie, a wo-man now in her early 20s, said she was diagnosed with Type 2 Diabetes in 2016. “[The] disease did not exist in children prior to the tortious and unlawful conduct,” of processed food com-panies, she says.
The suit goes on to list the UPFs Kreie consumed as a teen, including products from names 12 major food companies, including Kraft Heinz, Mondelēz International, Post Holdings, Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, General Mills, Nestle, Kellanova, Kellogg, Mars Inc., Conagra Brands and Unilever.
Not a new campaign
The legal campaign against the UPF makers is not a new phenomenon. The City of San Francisco was behind the first such major lawsuit, in which it claimed 10 of the largest packaged food manufact-urers engineered a ‘public health crisis’ that has burdened the city with the cost of treating condit-ions such as diabetes and heart disease.
“Recent surveys show Americans want to avoid ultra-processed foods, but we are inundated by them,” San Francisco City Attorney David Chiu said in a statement. “These companies engineered a public health crisis, they profited handsomely, and now they need to take responsibility for the harm they have caused.”
Clouding the issue
Other factors that tend to defocus the complaints against UPFs include their proven addictive nature (as opposed to the actual damage they do), and parallel campaigns against UPF components includ-ing artificial colourings, flavourings and preservatives.
My take
The UPF makers have a huge stake in keeping things the way they are. They fight back with everything they can throw at lawsuits and legislation that seek to limit their activities. And the only times they do make adjustments in their recipes and business plans are when they’re forced to by new regulat-ions or court orders.
It’s time for a really meaningful move – like a victory for the people in this $1 billion lawsuit – to mark the beginning of a consumer and social shift against UPFs that vote-conscious lawmakers will have to take note of…
~ Maggie J.