Why San Francisco is suing top U.S. food manufacturers over ultra-processed foods

Key Concepts

• Ultra-processed Foods (UPF): Foods that have undergone extensive industrial processing and typically contain ingredients not used in home cooking, such as additives, emulsifiers, and flavorings.
• Addiction Playbook: Strategies used to create addictive products, originally developed for substances like tobacco and opioids, now applied to food.
• Nutrient Whack-a-Mole: The industry’s tactic of altering single nutrients (sugar, fat) in response to health concerns, while maintaining overall ultra-processing.
• Enzymatic Processing: A food processing technique that speeds up nutrient absorption, intensifying the rewarding effect of food.
• Big Tobacco’s Influence: The historical takeover of food companies by tobacco corporations and the application of their marketing and product development strategies to the food industry.

The Lawsuit and the Rise of Ultra-Processed Foods

San Francisco has initiated a first-of-its-kind lawsuit against eleven major food companies, alleging they knowingly sell ultra-processed foods (UPF) harmful to public health. This action highlights a growing concern about the prevalence of UPF in the American diet – estimated to be over 60% of all food consumed. The lawsuit reflects a surprising point of agreement between a heavily democratic city and the Trump administration, both recognizing the potential dangers of these foods. Scientific research increasingly links high consumption of UPF to chronic diseases including obesity, type 2 diabetes, heart disease, and depression.

The Addictive Nature of Ultra-Processed Foods

Ashley Gearhardt, a psychology professor at the University of Michigan, explains that UPF are intentionally engineered to be addictive. She describes a deliberate “addiction playbook” borrowed from industries like tobacco and opioids. This playbook involves manipulating food to deliver a “just right dose of reward” – stimulating but not fully satisfying, creating a cycle of craving and consumption. Gearhardt notes the key elements include: altering natural ingredients to maximize reward, precisely controlling flavor, smell, and taste, and ensuring constant accessibility of the product. She states, “These products can trigger the worst kinds of addiction, loss of control, intense cravings, continued use even though you know it may be killing or harming you.”

Big Tobacco’s Legacy in the Food Industry

A significant historical connection is drawn between the tobacco industry and the rise of UPF. In the 1960s, 70s, and 80s, companies like Philip Morris and R.J. Reynolds began acquiring major food manufacturers like Kraft and General Foods. According to Gearhardt, these companies then applied the marketing and product development techniques honed in the tobacco industry – including specific flavorants and marketing strategies – to products like Hawaiian Punch and Lunchables. Researcher Laura Schmidt’s work provides evidence supporting this transfer of technology. While some of these food companies were later divested, the impact of “big tobacco” on the food supply remains, and has even “amplified over time.”

Regulation and Industry Practices

Gearhardt argues for increased regulation of UPF, similar to the regulations now in place for tobacco. She points to industry statements revealing a focus on maximizing profits from cravings and “indulgence,” highlighting the need for government intervention to protect public health. She states, “we’ve needed time and time again for the government to step in and put some guardrails on those sorts of companies so we and our children can live happy, sustainable, nourished lives.”

Defining and Understanding Ultra-Processing

The discussion addresses criticism that the term “ultra-processed food” is too broad and lacks a clear definition. Gearhardt counters that focusing solely on individual nutrients allows the industry to engage in “nutrient whack-a-mole,” making superficial changes while maintaining the overall harmful nature of the product. She emphasizes that the focus should be on the process of ultra-processing itself, recognizing its complexity and impact beyond simple nutrient content.

The Science of Ultra-Processing and Nutrient Absorption

The conversation delves into the scientific mechanisms behind UPF’s addictive potential. Beyond manipulating sugar, fat, and salt levels, ultra-processing can accelerate the absorption of these nutrients into the body, intensifying the rewarding effect. Techniques like enzymatic processing mimic natural digestive processes but enhance absorption speed, exceeding the impact of traditionally prepared foods. The industry also utilizes a vast array of engineered flavors designed to provide an initial burst of pleasure followed by rapid fading, encouraging continued consumption.

Global Perspective and Potential Solutions

Gearhardt emphasizes that the United States is an outlier in its reliance on UPF, with countries like Italy and Greece having significantly lower rates of UPF consumption (less than 20%). She argues that the problem is a result of investment and incentivization, and that the US has the capacity to shift towards a food system that prioritizes real, convenient, affordable, and tasty food, as seen in other nations. She expresses optimism that this change is possible, stating, “We absolutely have the levers to start to invest in real food that’s convenient, affordable, and tasty, just like other countries get, so we can be strong and healthy and happy going into the future.”

Conclusion

The interview highlights the growing concern surrounding ultra-processed foods and their detrimental impact on public health. The San Francisco lawsuit, coupled with insights from Ashley Gearhardt, reveals a deliberate strategy employed by the food industry – influenced by tactics originally developed by tobacco companies – to create addictive products. Addressing this issue requires a shift in focus from individual nutrients to the processes of ultra-processing, increased government regulation, and a re-evaluation of food system priorities to prioritize real, nourishing food. The US can learn from other countries and actively invest in a healthier food future.