Are ultra-processed foods making you sick?
A new wave of lawsuits targets big food as health crisis mounts
A legal reckoning may be coming for the food industry.
In a growing trend that mirrors the early days of tobacco and opioid litigation, consumers across the country are filing personal injury lawsuits against major food manufacturers, alleging that long-term consumption of ultra-processed foods (UPFs) has led to serious, sometimes life-threatening health conditions.
From Type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease to obesity-related complications and certain cancers, plaintiffs are seeking compensation for medical expenses, lost wages, and emotional suffering they say are directly tied to their diets.
These legal challenges signal a major turning point in food litigation — shifting focus from class-action suits and misleading labeling claims to individual injury cases centered on personal harm.
Ultra-processed foods, or UPFs, are highly engineered products made with industrial ingredients that rarely resemble anything found in nature. These include artificial flavorings, preservatives, emulsifiers, and large amounts of added sugar, salt, and unhealthy fats. Common examples include:
• Sodas and sugary beverages
• Instant noodles and microwaveable meals
• Snack cakes and candy bars
• Sugary cereals and granola bars marketed as “healthy”
• Frozen entrees labeled as “low-fat” or “heart-healthy”
While undeniably convenient, research over the past decade has painted a sobering picture of their health impact. A 2023 study published in The Lancet found that individuals with high UPF intake faced a 30% increased risk of all-cause mortality.
Other studies have linked these products to obesity, fatty liver disease, hypertension, digestive disorders, and cognitive decline. Despite the mounting evidence, critics argue that the food industry continues to promote these items with aggressive marketing—often under the guise of wellness.
Attorneys representing affected consumers claim food companies knowingly misled the public about the long-term health risks associated with their products. The lawsuits assert that:
• Marketing language like “made with whole grains,” “low fat” or “part of a balanced breakfast” falsely conveyed health benefits.
• Vulnerable populations, including children and low-income communities, were aggressively targeted with advertising.
• Companies failed to disclose or deliberately downplayed internal research indicating health dangers.
To prevail in court, plaintiffs must typically demonstrate:
• Regular consumption of specific ultra-processed products
• A diagnosed medical condition scientifically linked to UPF consumption
• Proof that the manufacturer misrepresented or failed to disclose relevant health risks
• A causal connection between product use and the injury suffered
Early lawsuits could set precedents. One such case out of Illinois involves a 38-year-old woman who developed Type 2 diabetes and heart disease after more than a decade of eating frozen meals and snack bars marketed as “smart choices.” Her legal team argues that deceptive branding and lack of adequate warnings directly contributed to her illness.
Similar lawsuits are in the works across California, New York and Florida, often backed by public health experts and nutrition scientists prepared to testify about the physiological impact of UPFs — and what food manufacturers knew about them.
Predictably, the food industry is pushing back. A spokesperson for one major manufacturer stated: “There is no one food or food group that causes illness. Health outcomes are the result of broader lifestyle factors.”
But internal documents uncovered during the legal discovery process suggest that some companies may have suppressed internal research linking ultra-processed foods to chronic illness. Legal analysts see echoes of past mass tort litigation, particularly tobacco and opioids — where companies were ultimately held liable for manipulating science, concealing risks, and fueling public health crises.
While adults are increasingly pursuing legal action over the long-term health effects of ultra-processed foods (UPFs), experts warn that children may be suffering the most silent harm. These products — common in school lunches, after-school snacks, and even “kid-friendly” breakfast items — are shaping the dietary habits and biological outcomes of an entire generation.
Studies have linked high UPF consumption in children to rising rates of obesity, early-onset Type 2 diabetes, attention-deficit disorders, and developmental issues. Because children are still growing, their bodies are particularly vulnerable to the high sugar, sodium and artificial additives found in these foods. Moreover, food companies have long targeted kids with colorful packaging, cartoon mascots and claims that mask nutritional deficiencies, deepening the potential for lifelong health consequences.
Public health advocates argue that without stronger regulations and clearer warnings, children will continue to bear the brunt of a system designed to prioritize profit over wellness.
If you believe your health or the health of your child has been compromised by prolonged consumption of ultra-processed foods, you may qualify for legal action. Criteria include:
• Regular consumption of ultra-processed food products over several years
• A diagnosis of a serious medical condition such as Type 2 diabetes, heart disease, colorectal cancer or obesity-related complications
• Evidence that you relied on the product’s branding, marketing or labeling as a guide for food choices
Leading the charge area is Attorney Aaron Rihn, a partner at Robert Peirce & Associates and a seasoned expert in class-action, mass tort and product liability cases. With well over $50 million recovered for clients in Pennsylvania and West Virginia, Rihn is an outspoken advocate for corporate accountability.
“For decades, the food industry has strategically buried the truth about ultra-processed foods — manipulating science, influencing regulations and flooding the market with addictive products,” said Rihn. “This isn’t just negligence; it’s a calculated effort to keep the public in the dark while profits soar and health declines.”
As more lawsuits are filed and evidence mounts, the question facing the courts — and the country — is clear: Should food companies be held responsible for the long-term health consequences of their products?
For now, consumers, attorneys, and public health advocates are joining forces with a resounding yes.
If you believe your health has been compromised by long-term consumption of ultra-processed foods, contact Attorney Aaron Rihn at Robert Peirce & Associates for a free consultation. Aaron and his team are experienced in holding large corporations accountable for deceptive and harmful practices in the food and pharmaceutical industries. Call 412-281-7229 or visit peircelaw.com to learn more about your legal options.
This has been a paid article submitted by our content partner.
Remove the ads from your TribLIVE reading experience but still support the journalists who create the content with TribLIVE Ad-Free.