Ultra-processed foods: the emerging class action landscape in the US and UK

The legal landscape surrounding ultra-processed foods (UPFs) is rapidly evolving, with increasing scrutiny from regulators, consumers, and litigators alike. Recent developments in the US and growing interest in the UK suggest that food manufacturers and retailers should prepare for potential regulatory changes and legal disputes, particularly, class actions style disputes.

In December 2024, a case described as the “first of its kind” on UPFs was filed by Bryce Martinez in Philadelphia against Kraft Heinz, Mondelez, Post Holdings, Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, General Mills, Nestle, Kellanova, WK Kellogg, Mars, and ConAgra Brands. Martinez claims that ingesting these companies’ UPFs led him to develop type 2 diabetes and non-alcoholic fatty liver disease at age 16.

The case defines “UPFs” as “industrially produced edible substances that are imitations of food” and alleges that the above companies:

• targeted children in marketing campaigns, leading to chronic diseases;
• deployed practices similar to those used by cigarette manufacturers to create addictive products; and
• engaged in conspiracy, negligence, fraudulent misrepresentation, failure to warn, breach of warranty, and unfair business practices.

The plaintiff cites a significant number of studies linking UPFs to cancers, cardiovascular disease, IBS, dementia and other adverse mental health outcomes in the lawsuit.

The Claimant’s lawyers in the Martinez case have drawn explicit parallels with the tobacco industry and the addictiveness of cigarettes, alleging that American food company executives deployed the “cigarette playbook” to fill the food industry with addictive substances. Several of the allegations are based on the premise that certain food companies were owned by tobacco companies (e.g. Philip Morris and Kraft) and shared their previous research in that industry. This perspective attempts to circumvent causation challenges by focusing on alleged unethical conduct aimed at increasing addiction, rather than putting the onus on claimants to prove direct causation of adverse health impacts from UPFs.

While direct litigation in the UK appears less advanced than in the US, there are indications that the legal landscape is shifting. A prominent UK claimant law firm is reportedly exploring a class action against major food companies in the UK food and drink sector. Their approach is understood to be at an exploratory stage, with discussions involving think tanks and policy experts. The gambling sector is also understood to be a place of interest due to the similarities in marketing tactics.

The “no win, no fee” case structure prevalent in the UK creates an attractive opportunity for potential claimants to join a class action. This, combined with the relaxation of rules on litigation funding and law firm advertising, has created a climate favourable to mass claims, particularly for US claimant lawyer investment in the UK.

The issue of causation would be a legal hurdle to jump. However, evidence of adverse health issues due to the ingestion of UPFs may emerge through whistle-blowers. Alternatively, if damaging documents enter the public domain via US litigation (in the case of companies with affiliates there), or if documents can be found during disclosure stages, this would not be favourable to possible defendant companies.

Unlike some jurisdictions, the UK does not currently have specific laws or regulations that directly address UPFs. However, the general principles of food safety law still apply, primarily through:

• The Food Safety Act 1990 (the “FSA”);
• EU Regulation No 178/2002 (the “General Food Law Regulation”); and
• Regulation (EC) No 852/2004 (the “Food Hygiene and Safety Regulation”).

These regulations establish important principles that could form the basis of UPF-related disputes.

Safety assessment

Under the General Food Law Regulation, food is deemed unsafe if it is considered “injurious to health” or “unfit for human consumption”.

When determining whether food is safe, the following should be considered:

• normal conditions of use by consumers and at all stages of production, processing, and distribution;
• information provided to consumers, including labelling and other general information available, on avoiding specific adverse health effects from certain foods or food categories.
• When determining whether food is injurious to health, the following should be considered:
• probable immediate, short-term, and long-term health effects on consumers and subsequent generations;
• probable cumulative toxic effects; and
• particular health sensitivities of specific consumer categories when food is intended for a specific category of consumers.

This comprehensive approach to safety assessment creates potential exposure for manufacturers of UPFs, particularly as scientific evidence regarding long-term health effects continues to emerge.

Risk analysis and the precautionary principle

The General Food Law Regulation requires food law to be based on risk analysis using available scientific evidence. Crucially, under the precautionary principle, where the possibility of harmful effects is identified even when scientific evidence remains uncertain, provisional risk management measures may be adopted pending further scientific evidence.

This principle could serve as a basis for regulatory action against UPFs even before scientific consensus is fully established, provided the measures are proportionate and subject to review.

Scientific evidence and public awareness

The Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition (SACN) published a rapid-evidence update in April 2025 that provides insights into the health impacts of UPFs, noting growing evidence linking UPF consumption to adverse health outcomes including obesity, cardiovascular diseases, and metabolic disorders.

Media coverage of UPF-related issues has increased dramatically in recent years, from a handful of mentions in national UK newspapers in 2020, to hundreds of mentions in the last two years (2023 – 2025). This part has been possibly driven by the book, Ultra-Processed People, by Chris van Tulleken, which was first published in April 2023 and has won awards. The heightened public awareness, combined with advocacy from NGOs and food campaigners like Jamie Oliver, creates an environment conducive to litigation.

An initial question for any claims brought in the UK regarding UPFs is: What is meant by “UPFs”?  There are multiple different definitions, few if any are precise. Any definition may well be dictated by the nature of any claim.

While specific claims would depend on circumstances, potential legal claims in the UK might include:

1. Product liability claims: under the Consumer Protection Act 1987, UPFs could potentially be deemed defective products if they cause harm to consumers.
2. Negligence claims: following the principles established in Donoghue v Stevenson, manufacturers could face claims for failing to take reasonable care regarding the formulation, testing, or marketing of UPFs.
3. Consumer protection claims: the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 could form the basis of claims related to misleading labelling or marketing of UPFs.
4. Misrepresentation claims: alleged untrue statements by manufacturers about the healthfulness or safety of their products could lead to misrepresentation.

The factual bases for such claims might include:

• Addictiveness: claims that UPFs are engineered to be addictive, similar to cigarettes;
• Satiability: allegations that UPFs confuse normal satiety signals, leading to over consumption;
• Health harms: claims linking UPFs to specific health conditions, including cancers, diabetes, and obesity; and
• Inadequate labelling: claims that manufacturers failed to warn about potential risks.

Given these developments, food companies should consider taking proactive steps to mitigate legal risks:

• Product portfolio assessment: identify potential UPFs within your portfolio using the NOVA established classification system.
• Scientific literature review: assess the “state of the art” of current scientific literature regarding UPFs and associated health risks, including evidence that might be relied on by potential claimants.
• Documentation review: identify key internal custodians likely to have been involved in decision-making processes around UPFs and map where relevant documents are stored.
• Risk assessment implementation: conduct and regularly update risk assessments based on the growing scientific evidence.
• Information disclosure evaluation: review product labelling and consumer information to ensure consumers are adequately informed about potential health effects.
• Expert engagement: consider instructing experts in anticipation of potential litigation.
• Media strategy development: develop a comprehensive media strategy for addressing litigation threats and responding to negative publicity.

The legal landscape surrounding UPFs is rapidly evolving, with increasing interest from regulators, consumers, and litigators. While the UK lacks specific UPF regulations, existing food safety frameworks and civil causes of action provide ample grounds for potential disputes. The Martinez case in the US offers a preview of litigation strategies that might be deployed while increasing activity by UK claimant firms suggests similar cases could emerge domestically.

Given the substantial financial exposure associated with these claims that could amount to millions, potentially involving large claimant classes and significant individual damages, food companies would be well-advised to take proactive measures to assess and mitigate their legal risks. Because there is a perception that these companies have deep pockets, court judgments for damages may be easily enforceable. As scientific understanding of UPFs evolves, companies that stay ahead of these developments will be in the best position to navigate this challenging legal landscape.