Growing Bipartisan Movement Against Major Food Manufacturers in the U.S.

In the United States, there is an intensifying bipartisan movement challenging the influence of major food manufacturers. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has emerged as a prominent voice against ultra-processed foods (UPFs), which he believes are “poisoning” the population. These products account for roughly 70% of the marketed food items found in American grocery stores.

In a concerted effort, more than a dozen states proposed legislation last year aimed at tackling the issue of harmful chemicals present in food. However, regulatory attempts to manage unhealthy UPFs have faced obstacles due to the absence of a specific UPF definition from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

The FDA has acknowledged a “clear link between UPFs and negative health outcomes.” They noted that ultra-processed items are typically mass-produced and contain various additives—such as flavors, colors, and essential nutrients—that enhance their appeal, often including saturated fats, sodium, and added sugars.

During a Senate health committee meeting last December concerning the FDA’s initiatives to combat diabetes and obesity in the U.S., agency representatives expressed, “There is still much to be learned about UPFs.” They further pointed out the necessity of comprehending how UPFs negatively affect health to inform effective policies and avoid misleading messages for consumers.

Bipartisan efforts at the state level to restore health in America pose a significant short-term challenge for large food corporations. In California, Democratic Representative Jesse Gabriel has introduced a landmark bill aimed at establishing the first legal definition of UPFs in the nation, mandating the state’s environmental health regulator to identify and phase out “particularly harmful” UPFs from school meals by 2032.

Legal experts at Jones Day warn that California’s creation of a legal UPF definition could set a precedent, leading other states to pursue similar restrictive laws targeting the food and beverage sector.

Simultaneously, in Pennsylvania, Republican state representative Natalie Mihalek has proposed a series of laws aimed at the food industry, including a ban on unhealthy ultra-processed foods within schools.

There is an emerging trend among personal injury lawyers, who see new opportunities in this waning support for Big Food. In December, the firm Morgan & Morgan initiated a groundbreaking lawsuit against 11 major food companies—such as Kraft Heinz, Mondelez, PepsiCo, and WK Kellogg—claiming they have manipulated ultra-processed foods to be highly addictive, employing sales strategies reminiscent of tobacco companies, which has led to UPFs overshadowing traditional food options.

The lawsuit, led by plaintiffs like 18-year-old Bryce Martinez from Pennsylvania, asserts that the actions of these food corporations contributed to his diagnosis of type 2 diabetes and non-alcoholic fatty liver disease at just 16 years of age.

Hilliard Law, a Texas law firm, reports a surge of inquiries from individuals seeking legal recourse after linking their health issues to ultra-processed food consumption. This firm anticipates filing its first lawsuits by the end of this year.

The Consumer Brands Association, which represents U.S. packaged food manufacturers, contends that these companies adhere to stringent safety standards set by the FDA, aiming to provide safe, affordable, and accessible products for consumers. They have also launched a campaign to clarify misconceptions surrounding processed foods.

However, major food lobbyists find themselves losing support among policymakers. Melanie Benesh, vice president of government affairs at the Environmental Working Group—an organization advocating against food industry loopholes that threaten health—stated, “There is currently no issue that enjoys less partisanship than food.” She added that many traditional allies of food corporations in Congress are now advocating against ultra-processed foods and harmful food chemicals.

Despite this shift, she indicated that the Trump administration had not taken meaningful action against unhealthy food practices, having instead eliminated a significant number of food and health positions and overturned Biden-era measures aimed at reducing salmonella in poultry.

The future of the Trump administration’s stance on curbing unhealthy UPF consumption remains uncertain. A commission titled “Make America Healthy Again,” led by Kennedy, is expected to present policy recommendations to the president in the upcoming summer. Meanwhile, state legislators are proactively preparing to engage in their own battles against large food producers.

Louisa Clarence-Smith serves as the U.S. business editor.