Product 1

First of Its Kind Lawsuit Targeting “Ultra-Processed Foods” Filed in #1 Judicial Hellhole®

Here we go again … one of the nation’s most prolific plaintiffs’ firms, Morgan & Morgan, has set its sights on a new sector of American industry, manufacturers of “ultra-processed foods.” In what should come as no surprise, the firm chose the nation’s No. 1 Judicial Hellhole®, the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas, to file a first-of-its-kind lawsuit alleging that companies like Kraft Heinz, Coca-Cola, General Mills, Nestlé and others designed and marketed “ultra processed foods” in a way that is addictive to children, leading to the rise in chronic diseases in children.   

In search of their next “golden egg,” the plaintiff’s lawyers’ litigation theory mirrors the tobacco litigation from decades ago and alleges the companies used the same playbook. It seeks to pin the blame for the increased rate of chronic disease and childhood obesity on food manufacturers. In this instance, the plaintiff alleges that he developed Type 2 Diabetes at 16-years-old as a result of consuming “ultra-processed foods” as a child.   

As pointed out by Sarah Gallo, senior vice president of product policy for Consumer Brands Association, “There is currently no agreed upon scientific definition of ultra-processed food.” Despite a lack of consensus among the scientific community around defining what “ultra-processed foods” are, the plaintiffs’ lawyers still generated litigation.  Absent scientific consensus, they created their own definition to fit their needs.  According to the plaintiff’s lawyers, “Ultra-processed foods (“UPF”) are industrially produced edible substances that are imitations of food. They consist of former foods that have been fractioned into substances, chemically modified, combined with additives, and then reassembled using industrial techniques such as molding, extrusion and pressurization.” 

“Attempting to classify foods as unhealthy simply because they are processed, or demonizing food by ignoring its full nutrient content, misleads consumers and exacerbates health disparities.” 

Sarah Gallo, senior vice president of product policy for Consumer Brands Association 

The Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas is known for allowing litigation based on junk science to proceed, and fellow No. 1 Judicial Hellhole®, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, has reinforced the court’s open-door policy by embracing one of the weakest expert evidence standards in the country. Defendants did file notice of removal to federal court in late January, a move that could be challenged by the plaintiff’s lawyers to ensure the case is heard in the most plaintiff-friendly court.  

The ATRF will be monitoring this case closely and reporting important updates.     

Latest News