Why modern food processing, ingredient quality, and health outcomes can no longer hide behind ambiguity.
San Francisco’s recent lawsuit against ten of America’s largest food manufacturers marks a profound shift in how society views the modern food system. For decades, concerns about highly processed, industrially engineered food have circulated in research journals and public-health circles. But this is the first time a major U.S. city has directly accused food companies of producing products that are not only unhealthy for their community, but systemically harmful, designed in ways that contribute to chronic disease and misled consumers.
Inside the Case: The 10 Food Giants in San Francisco’s UPF Lawsuit
The lawsuit targets Kraft Heinz, PepsiCo, Coca-Cola, General Mills, Nestlé, Kellanova, Mondelez, Mars, Post Holdings, and Conagra. Together, they dominate the center aisles of nearly every American grocery store. San Francisco argues that these companies rely on ultra-processed food formulations engineered with refined starches, artificial flavors, emulsifiers, low-quality oils, and chemical additives that fundamentally alter how the human body processes food. The suit positions these products not as occasional treats but as structural drivers of metabolic disease, disproportionately affecting children and vulnerable communities.
The legal strategy mirrors early tobacco litigation: using California’s Unfair Competition Law and public-nuisance doctrine, the city argues these companies knowingly create and promote products that impose a measurable health burden. What’s notable is the reframing of responsibility. Instead of casting unhealthy eating as a matter of personal choice, the lawsuit asks whether the design of the food itself – its processing, its addictive cues, its ingredient construction – subverts normal biological regulation.
Whether the case succeeds will depend on data: can ultra-processed food be clearly defined, and do the facts support the claim that it is harmful? Historically, the lack of a universal UPF definition allowed companies to argue ambiguity. That era is ending. With frameworks such as the WISEcode UPF standard and the upcoming $200K Code Hack initiative, the scientific and regulatory landscape is moving toward precise, evidence-based classifications.
UPF and Super-UPF: How Much of the Shelf Is Ultra-Processed?
When we examine the portfolios of the companies named in the lawsuit using WISEcode’s dataset, the findings are not ambiguous.
- More than half of their products – over 53% – are classified as Ultra-Processed or Super-UPF.
- Artificial ingredients appear in roughly 60% of products,
- Emulsifiers in about 40%
- And only 19% qualify as “high-quality ingredients.”
More than one-third of products fall into “high-risk” or “concerning” ingredient profiles, characterized by refined starches, low-grade oils, and synthetic additives.
Sugar density adds another layer of concern: roughly one-third of their products contain high sugar levels associated with metabolic dysfunction.
When these factors are integrated into the WISEscore – a comprehensive measure of ingredient quality, nutrient value, and health impact – 40% of products score as fair or poor. Only 8.5% achieve an excellent rating.
These are not marginal products. They are everyday foods that define the American diet. When a city sees data showing that a majority of its food supply is ultra-processed and structurally unhealthy, the lawsuit’s logic becomes clear. The data itself is deeply concerning for these companies and signals a need for systemic reassessment.
The Future of Food Transparency: Courts, Codes, and Consumer Power
Yet the lawsuit is only one part of the story. The deeper truth is that the tools for transparency finally exist and can provide immediate clarity for consumers; revealing processing levels, ingredient quality, sugar density, additives, emulsifiers, and dozens of health-related insights hidden behind labels.
For CPG companies, WISEcode serves as both diagnostic and roadmap, identifying where formulations fall into the UPF or “high-risk” penalty box and showing precisely how they can improve.
For retailers, it ensures shelves reflect products that protect, not harm, customers.
And for new food innovators, it becomes a competitive advantage: proof, backed by data, that high-quality food truly is different.
San Francisco’s lawsuit may be the first major legal challenge to ultra-processed foods, but the future of food transparency will not be settled in courts. It will be shaped by data – clear, objective, and actionable. And for the first time, the industry and its consumers have access to the tools needed to build that future.