Are Ultra-Processed Foods the Next Big Tobacco? Inside the Lawsuits Targeting Food Giants

What Are Ultra-Processed Foods?

Ultra-processed foods (UPFs) are packaged foods made from manufactured or artificial ingredients combined into an edible product. These man-made foods lack nutrition and are low in sustenance, merely satisfying a consumer’s short-term cravings and eliciting an addictive consumption response after completion. Research has shown that the ingredients contained in UPFs contribute to a heightened risk of diabetes, cancer, heart disease and weight gain among young people. Because these products are low in nutrients and high in refined sugars and starches, they draw people to overconsume, causing blood sugar to spike.

Some commonly seen ultra-processed foods in our grocery stores include frozen meals, packaged snacks, sweets, and canned soups and pastas. Although these foods’ labels often list unidentifiable ingredients, the simplest way to identify a UPF is to check whether the ingredient list includes a substance not commonly used in home kitchens. Some of these substances include fruit juice concentrate, whey protein and high-fructose corn syrup, as well as additives such as sweeteners, oils, food coloring, preservatives and artificial flavoring that get consumers hooked. These products go through multiple processes, including extrusion, molding and milling, reducing the nutritional value of the whole food product they are derived from.

Makers of ultra-processed foods are now facing stricter scrutiny and regulatory review for their unethical practices and their contributions to nationwide health problems, including type 2 diabetes, cancer and childhood obesity.

The Engineering Process of UPFs

Ultra-processed foods are made from the fractions of whole food substances and undergo comprehensive chemical modification that reduces the nutritional value of the product drastically. These products fall into Group 4 of the NOVA food classification system because they are made through industrial practices of fractionation, chemical modification and the inclusion of harmful additives. Fractionation is the process in which whole foods are deconstructed to separate certain components of the food for consumption. For example, elements such as fiber, protein, starch and sugar are frequently extracted from whole foods to build ultra-processed foods. UPFs also contain additives including sweeteners, emulsifiers and thickening agents that contribute to their addictive nature. These products also undergo a series of industrial processes, such as hydrogenation, texturization and extrusion, that alter the physical properties of the original whole food, changing its shape and nature to appeal to consumers and extend shelf life.

UPF engineering also draws on flavor science to create addictive, flavorful products that draw consumers into wanting more. Food engineers and technologists employ chemical modification techniques to trigger certain reactions in consumers, using aromatic compounds, eye-catching visual design and emotional associations to create foods that strongly appeal to the senses. These strategies surrounding the engineering and technological manufacturing process of UPFs elicit an addictive response from consumers, encouraging them to overconsume UPFs.

The Psychological Influence

Research has found that ultra-processed foods contain addictive elements that mirror the addictive effects of tobacco products. Manufacturers of UPFs aim to create a “bliss point,” which is the optimal level of sugar, salt or fat that triggers a release of dopamine and evokes pleasurable feelings from consuming the product. These bliss points are created to be momentarily high, causing an instant spike in the pleasure neurotransmitter, followed by a crash that leaves consumers wanting more. Like tobacco products, UPFs elicit addictive responses: they trigger compulsive eating behaviors that make it difficult to stop eating, produce psychoactive effects that alter mood, reinforce repeated use and can trigger stronger cravings.

Studies have drawn links between the addictive psychological effects of tobacco and those of UPFs. One major shared effect is compulsive use. Research found that even patients who developed long-term health problems from tobacco continued to use it. Similar to this effect, UPFs also have the reinforcing effect of pushing addictive intakes, contributing to the development of binge eating habits that cause overconsumption. Another effect of tobacco and UPFs is their ability to alter users’ mood. Both tobacco and UPF intake are found to elicit short-term positive or pleasurable responses on the brain and relieve negative feelings in the short term, effects comparable to those of nicotine and alcohol. For instance, nicotine in tobacco alters our moods, creating a positive response, which is similar to the effects of consuming UPF products such as white chocolate. Consumption of UPFs also generates reinforcing tendencies, pushing users to self-administer, similar to the self-administering consequences tobacco users encounter. Children are a primary target audience for UPFs and are disproportionately vulnerable to self-administration, making them prone to obesity and weight gain. Increased or daily exposure to UPF products drives youth to crave these foods, reinforcing the habit and hooking children. Finally, just as tobacco leaves users constantly craving it, ultra-processed foods also promote heightened levels of cravings or urges that lead to UPF overconsumption.

Company Strategies

Young children and youth are the key target market for ultra-processed food companies. These corporations push out marketing campaigns that grab the attention of youth. From animated characters that young children know and love to catchy slogans that promote nostalgia and specific lifestyles, these strategies have significantly reeled consumers into buying UPFs. The incorporation of well-known TV and movie characters from studios such as Disney, Pixar and Universal, and the use of bright, whimsical colors has contributed to the branding label of UPFs, drawing young children into consuming these foods.

UPF companies also design their products and packaging to be visually and sensorially stimulating to youth. For example, companies employ bright colors, celebrity endorsements, puzzles and collectible toys to market to the younger audience. These harmful marketing strategies and corporations’ reliance on popular children’s characters from the media have fundamentally increased children’s influence over what their parents buy, as children urge them to buy these foods, contributing to the heightened risks of developing health issues. This phenomenon is known as “pester power”: the more UPF companies market their products to appeal to children’s needs or reflect current trends in media, the more persuasive or demanding the child becomes in “pestering” their parents to buy the item for them.

In addition to UPF companies’ targeted marketing usage of popular youth franchise characters, these corporations also aim to sell youth a feeling: a desirable lifestyle. These marketing strategies also parallel the techniques used by Big Tobacco. For example, characters such as Marlboro’s Marlboro Man and Camel’s Joe Camel were featured on cigarette packages, television commercials and advertisements. These characters were used to draw young people to the products; Joe Camel, for instance, was featured wearing sleek clothes and striking a “heroic pose,” surrounded by women characters wearing dresses. This portrayal of Joe suggests that smoking is “cool” and that anyone who smokes will obtain this lifestyle. Just like the graphics and characters that tobacco companies employ in their marketing campaigns, ultra-processed food companies also use catchy slogans or graphics that promote a certain lifestyle to hook children into purchasing their products. An example of this is Tony the Tiger, the mascot for Kellogg’s Frosted Flakes, who promotes a “healthy” lifestyle, featuring a cartoon character with a muscular build. In reality, the cereal is high in added sugar and offers minimal nutritional value.

On top of using popular media, false promotion of healthy lifestyles and cartoon characters to market their products, UPF companies also conduct behind-the-scenes research and fund scientific organizations that play up the supposed health benefits behind consuming their products. For instance, it was found that Coca-Cola, one of the biggest soda companies in the United States, funded a University of Colorado research network known as the “Global Energy Balance Network” to promote the agenda that “all calories are equal.” This promotes a biased and inaccurate representation of the components that make up these highly processed foods, giving consumers the false impression that these foods are no less nutritious, and no more unhealthy, than any other food. These companies’ participation in “corporate scientific activities” allows them to meticulously frame and cherry-pick desirable descriptions that highlight the positives, or misrepresent health consequences, to mislead consumers and avoid the disclosure of UPFs’ harmful effects. This positioning tactic contributes to the widespread unawareness of the health risks that arise from consuming UPFs, feeding the cycle of overconsumption and the national spike in health issues such as diabetes.

Health Risks

Research has found that consuming ultra-processed foods contributes to a greater risk of developing diseases, including cancer, liver disease, obesity and diabetes. Many young children and teens drawn in by UPF marketing tactics and addictive elements struggle with overconsumption, which in turn heightens their susceptibility to disease, most notably type 2 diabetes. Comprehensive research has also shown that consumption of UPFs leads to increased psychological and physiological comorbidities and can largely shape compulsive eating behaviors in youth and adults.

Legal Cases and Ultra-Processed Food Lawsuits

Although policy changes are still in the works, plaintiffs have taken legal action against the makers of ultra-processed foods to hold UPF companies accountable for imposing major health risks among youth. Lawsuits have been filed against UPF companies for deceptive advertising and false detailing of nutritional value to consumers. By providing false information on a product’s nutritional value, these companies mislead consumers into believing the product is healthy. Plaintiffs are also suing UPF companies for failing to disclose the harmful physiological and psychological consequences UPFs have on individuals’ bodies. Plaintiffs allege that this failure to disclose has contributed to a rise in diseases among U.S. youth, including cancer and type 2 diabetes, and to rising obesity rates. Finally, UPF companies are being sued for targeting vulnerable communities in America, particularly low-income, Black, Indigenous and other communities of color, and marginalized groups who cannot afford or access fresh, whole foods. This targeting falls hardest on these communities, which bear a disproportionate share of the diabetes epidemic.

Perhaps the most notable lawsuit was the case brought by plaintiff Bryce Martinez, who filed suit in December 2024 in the Court of Common Pleas in Philadelphia County; the defendants later moved the case to federal court. Martinez sued major food corporations, accusing the companies of contributing to the development of health issues and diseases through the marketing and manufacturing process of UPFs. His complaint argued that the targeted marketing of UPF products led him into a trap of overconsuming UPFs and their addictive elements. According to the complaint, his heavy exposure to and consumption of UPFs led him to develop type 2 diabetes and nonalcoholic fatty liver disease by age 16.

The lawsuit named 11 corporations, including Coca-Cola, Kraft Heinz, Nestlé USA and General Mills, over the addictive nature of UPFs, the targeting of marginalized groups and the failure to disclose the health risks from consuming the products. Martinez’s lawsuit was filed on grounds of gross negligence, failure to warn, breach of warranty, fraudulent concealment, unfair trade practices and concerted action.

A federal judge dismissed Martinez’s case in August 2025, finding too few facts tying specific products to his illnesses, and in June 2026 the court dismissed it permanently, writing that the law “requires more than correlation — it requires causation.” Morgan & Morgan, one of the firms representing Martinez, has said it plans to appeal, and similar suits have multiplied, including one filed in December 2025 by San Francisco City Attorney David Chiu. Still, lawsuits like the Martinez case shed light on the unethical practices UPF companies integrate in the development of their products and the harmful marketing techniques the corporations use to get youth hooked. More notably, the gradual widespread awareness of the health risks UPF products impose on their consumers has given rise to increased scrutiny and greater evaluation of UPF companies’ tactics. This awareness has brought the negligence of UPF companies’ strategies to the American public’s attention.

Sources

• Carlos A. Monteiro et al., “Ultra-processed foods: what they are and how to identify them,” National Library of Medicine
• Mikaela Conley, “Some ultra-processed foods are as addictive as cigarettes and cocaine,” U.S. Right to Know (2024)
• Ashley N. Gearhardt and Alexandra G. DiFeliciantonio, “Highly processed foods can be considered addictive substances based on established scientific criteria,” Addiction (2022)
• Jesse Lafontaine, Isabel Hanson and Cervantee Wild, “The impact of the social media industry as a commercial determinant of health on the digital food environment for children and adolescents: a scoping review,” National Library of Medicine (2025)
• Gyorgy Scrinis, “Ultra-Processed Foods and the Corporate Capture of Nutrition,” BMJ, vol. 371 (2020)
• Complaint, Martinez v. Kraft Heinz Co. et al., Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County (filed December 2024)
• The Philadelphia Inquirer, “Ultra-processed foods lawsuit dismissed” (Aug. 25, 2025)
• Bloomberg Law, “Ultra-Processed Food Lawsuits Multiply Despite Early Setbacks”