In-Depth Briefing

  • A judge permanently dismissed a lawsuit accusing Kraft Heinz, PepsiCo, and other food giants of failing to warn consumers about risks associated with ultra-processed products.
  • The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania ruled that plaintiff Brian Martinez could not conclusively prove that packaged foods caused his type 2 diabetes and non-alcoholic fatty liver disease.
  • Martinez had amended his lawsuit, filed in December 2024, adding more details about his consumption of ultra-processed foods after another judge dismissed the initial complaint as "grossly deficient." The latest ruling bars him from amending the lawsuit again.

Deep Insight

This dismissal is another courtroom victory for the packaged food industry amid a wave of lawsuits and state laws targeting the alleged dangers of ultra-processed ingredients. Over the past year, manufacturers also successfully blocked a Texas labeling law and a West Virginia ban on artificial dyes.

The ruling also casts a shadow over another high-profile lawsuit filed in April against ultra-processed food manufacturers. That case, heard in the Eastern District of Wisconsin, similarly attempts to link consumers' health problems to ultra-processed ingredients by listing the various products they consumed over their lifetimes.

The Pennsylvania case shows that merely listing ultra-processed products consumed is not enough to prove they caused harm. Martinez amended his complaint to list 179 products he ate during childhood and how often he consumed them. He claimed that ingredients in products such as Kraft American cheese led to "internal dysbiosis and systemic inflammation," which in turn affected organ function and desensitized insulin receptor signaling.

The court ruled that the correlation between the rise of ultra-processed foods (UPFs) and increases in childhood diseases such as type 2 diabetes does not constitute causation in the plaintiff's individual case. Martinez also failed to demonstrate how each of the 179 listed products contributed to his health issues, claiming that all ultra-processed ingredients caused the same health problems regardless of consumption frequency.

In the dismissal ruling, the judge wrote that the plaintiff "raises serious concerns about the ultra-processed food industry and its impact on children's health," but the law does not allow courts to hold the entire industry accountable.

"Plaintiffs seeking to hold food producers liable in tort must prove that the products they consumed caused the injuries they suffered," the judge added. "This poses a unique challenge for plaintiffs like Martinez who consume a large number of products over an extended period."

The National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) welcomed the Pennsylvania ruling, calling the case "a misguided effort to weaponize the tort system against food and beverage manufacturers."

"Baseless and agenda-driven lawsuits do not improve public health or product safety," said Linda Kelly, NAM's chief legal officer and corporate secretary, in a statement. "Instead, they create confusion, increase costs for consumers, and undermine the regulatory certainty manufacturers need to provide safe, nutritious, affordable, and accessible food for American families."

Lawsuits against ultra-processed food manufacturers claim that their products are scientifically designed to be addictive and that companies borrowed tactics from the tobacco industry when marketing to children. Although consumer lawsuits are now facing new obstacles, food manufacturers still face another major legal test—San Francisco has filed the first government lawsuit against the industry.