Ultra-Processed Food – A Growing Focus of Litigation in the United States

There is a growing body of evidence suggesting that ultra-processed food is driving long-term chronic health conditions. This evidence is spurring an emerging wave of litigation in the United States – including the first-of-its-kind lawsuit brought by a teenager in Pennsylvania.

Ultra-Processed Food

The term ‘ultra-processed food’ (“UPF”) is a catch-all used to categorise foods that have been industrially processed using multiple industrial techniques. UPF typically contains manufactured ingredients and additives^[1] to enhance flavour, texture, and shelf life. These products first became popular in the 1980s and have continued to gain prevalence, accounting for 57% of total daily calories consumed by American adults in 2017^[2].

There is a growing body of scientific research exploring the potential links between UPF consumption and chronic health conditions. In particular, studies suggest:

• the increasing prevalence of UPF in the average person’s diet mirrors a steady increase in cases of early onset colorectal cancer, particularly in males^[3] and those under 50^[4]; and

• the low fibre content and poor nutritional value of these foods, combined with the presence of chemical additives, may contribute to the development of Type 2 diabetes in regular consumers.

A growing wave of litigation in the United States is emerging in response to these findings. Plaintiffs are launching litigation against UPF manufacturers, accusing them of engaging in misleading advertising and failing to adequately disclose the health risks associated with their products.

First-of-its-kind UPF Litigation

In December 2024, Plaintiff Bryce Martinez (“Martinez”), a teenager, brought the first UPF lawsuit in Pennsylvania against leading UPF manufacturers including Nestle, Heinz and, Coca-Cola (“Defendant UPF Manufacturers”) for their role in bringing UPF, consumed by Martinez, to market. Martinez’s claim is a prime example of the growing wave of UPF litigation targeted at the manufacturers of these products.   

Martinez was diagnosed with Type 2 Diabetes and Non-Alcoholic Fatty Liver disease at age 16. Martinez alleged that his consumption of UPF during his adolescence caused these long-term chronic health conditions.

Martinez’s Complaint highlighted the connections between UPF manufacturers and tobacco companies. In particular, Martinez highlighted the long history of M&A activity between UPF manufacturers and some of the largest tobacco companies in the industry (‘Big Tobacco’). Phillips Morris and RJ Reynolds, names synonymous with Big Tobacco, acquired and merged Kraft Foods and Nabisco respectively with their existing tobacco businesses in the 1980s.  Their entry into the food and beverage manufacturing industry played a significant role in shaping the UPF landscape and the prevalence of UPF in the American diet.

Martinez also avers that Defendant UPF Manufacturers conducted studies to try and mirror the neurological impacts of consuming UPF with those of tobacco to make UPF addictive to consumers.

Martinez alleged that Defendant UPF Manufacturers knew of the risks associated with UPF being sold and marketed to consumers but nevertheless continued to do so. Martinez also alleged that Defendant UPF Manufacturers misrepresented the risks associated with UPF and long-term health conditions in children when marketing their products.

Defendant UPF Manufacturers successfully obtained a Motion to Dismiss in September 2025, with Judge Perez clarifying that Martinez:

• pleaded his allegations with a lack of specificity and in particular failed to identify specific products which he consumed, in what quantities, and when;
• failed to adequately plead causation; and
• failed to attribute the alleged acts or omissions to specific Defendant UPF Manufacturers but has instead brought a “shotgun pleading".

The Motion to Dismiss, however, has done little to quell the rising wave of UPF Litigation.

Emerging Risks

Nascent Class Actions

In parallel to Martinez’s claim, a number of class action lawsuits are currently underway across the United States, with plaintiff law firms actively seeking individuals who allege health complications arising from UPF consumption to launch litigation against UPF manufacturers as well as public bodies regulating their activities, including the FDA.

The developing litigation landscape regarding the health implications arising from UPF has parallels to litigation following the opioid crisis which swept the US in the early 2000s. In both instances, plaintiffs suffered harm as a result of something voluntarily ingested. Notable similarities can be seen in the arguments made by plaintiffs on manufacturer’s failure to accurately disclosure health risks when marketing the product.

As a point of difference, however, retailers of UPF are not yet facing litigation as a result of their part in marketing and providing consumers with access to UPF products. Time will tell whether the plaintiffs’ bar moves to do so in the future.

Growing Consensus around the Definition of UPF

The Defendant UPF Manufacturers in their Motion to Dismiss Martinez’s claim highlighted the lack of an established legal or scientific definition for the term ‘ultra-processed food’, which formed the foundation of the Plaintiff’s claim.

However, on 8 October 2025, California enacted a law (AB 1264) which provides a legal definition to the term UPF and bans certain UPFs from school meals.  The Californian legislation defines “ultra-processed foods of concern" as “any food and beverage that contains additives like thickeners, flavouring agents and enhancers — excluding natural spices or seasonings — non-nutritive sweeteners, artificial colours or food and beverages that have high amounts of saturated fats, sodium or added sugars”. This definition is far broader than that used in Martinez’s Complaint, which referred to UPFs containing “little to no whole food” and “industrially produced edible substances that are imitations of food”.

The implications of this development should be monitored, as it may materially strengthen future claims brought against UPF manufacturers by providing a clearer consensus as to the products which can be categorised as UPF.

Considerations for the Insurance Market

Whilst the dismissal of Martinez’s claim identifies the hurdles facing plaintiffs in establishing causation in UPF litigation, it is indicative of rising litigation in the US against the manufacturers of UPF.

Any relief provided by the Motion to Dismiss in Martinez’s claim is likely to be temporary. The Court largely granted the Motion to Dismiss on procedural grounds. The Court particularly noted that Martinez needed to show “more than the mere possibility of causation”.

However, the Court stated that it is “deeply concerned about the practices used to create and market UPFs, and the deleterious effect UPFs have on children and the American diet”.

The Court did not therefore make a finding regarding the merits of Martinez’s claim – and indeed indicated some sympathy towards the allegations raised.

As the regulatory landscape around UPF evolves—such as California’s legislative intervention—and scientific research on UPF continues to emerge, there remains a risk that plaintiffs may bring increasingly sophisticated and developed claims, identifying products, causation and defendant-specific conduct.

Insurers would be well advised to remain alert to developments in the UPF litigation and add UPF to the growing list of “emerging risks” with potential coverage implications.