Attempts to improve public health undermined by food companies suing governments over health improving policies
Report highlights impact of hundreds of global lawsuits against public health policies around food labelling and junk food regulating by ultra-processed food companies.
Some of the biggest global brands responsible for ultra-processed foods (UPFs) are holding back efforts to promote healthier diets by suing governments introducing improved dietary recommendations.
In a damning verdict on review of a new report, the head of the World Health Organization (WHO) has accused global food companies of obstructing the adoption of vital measures to improve public health, while also racking up billions of dollars in healthcare and legal costs as a result of law suits.
A recently published report titled, Big food vs. the people, by the non-profit newsroom Lighthouse Reports and a coalition of media partners across four continents in collaboration with academics, condemned the legal action against life-saving regulations.
In recent years governments around the world have responded to the health and economic impacts of the obesity crisis, by introducing measures designed to reduce consumption of unhealthy junk-food and promote healthier diets. These include front-of-pack warning labels, marketing and advertising restrictions on unhealthy products, and taxes on junk food.
The report found that 239 lawsuits were filed between 2010 and 2025 across Mexico, Colombia, Brazil, the US, the UK, and India against public health policies targeting food and beverages such as front of pack labelling, regulating advertising junk food to children, soda taxes, and taxes on ultra processed foods.
The report estimated that the combined cases add up to 595 years of litigation, “representing a significant burden on the governments defending their health policies”.
Of the cases brought by private companies where the plaintiff was identifiable, more than 1 in 3 came from just nine parent groups, led by Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, and Mondelez.
The report said: “Their [UPF brands] actions are not only prolonging the public health crisis but also cost countries billions of dollars in both legal and healthcare costs. In addition, they have a chilling effect on policymakers that wish to better their citizens’ health but do not have the resources to engage in drawn-out legal fights with food companies.”
In response to the report, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, the WHO Director General, said: “The findings of the global investigation into ultra-processed food come as no surprise, but they are met with grim recognition.
“When harm and profit are tied to the same product, a familiar pattern of industry interference emerges: sowing doubt and obstructing regulation.
“The report documents how litigation has been used to oppose or weaken public health measures on obesity and unhealthy diets, amounting to nearly 600 cumulative years of costly legal battles, an average of 2.5 years per case, most of them unsuccessful.
“These delays cost countries billions in healthcare and legal expenses and create a regulatory chill that deters governments from adopting vital protections.”
Of the resolved lawsuits, three-quarters were lost by the food corporations. However, these “victories” had an unwelcome consequence, as unsuccessful cases delayed the adoption of vital public health measures for years, while also tying up government and public health officials in complex and expensive litigation.
A report in The Guardian, one of the organisations involved in the investigation, said: “While most lawsuits were eventually won by governments, the persistent and intensive litigation by UPF companies suggested that other objectives beyond winning: slowing down the rollout of new laws, and crushing the desire and ability of other countries and regulators to adopt similar policies.”
It is currently estimated that almost one billion people worldwide are living with obesity, and unhealthy diets are one of the main drivers of heart disease, type 2 diabetes and cancer. Ultra-processed food (UPF) consumption continues to rise and now makes up half the average diet in many countries, including the UK, the US and Australia.
According to NHS figures, as of 2024, 66% of adults and 26% of children in England were either overweight or living with obesity.
The report highlighted an example of litigation in the UK: “In 2021, a year before Kellogg’s sued – and lost – against the country’s nutrient profiling model contained in the Food (Promotion and Placement) (England) Regulations 2021, it sent a pre-action letter to the Department of Health and Social Care, claiming the health rating of its cereals should be measured with the milk it is usually consumed with.
“A mere two weeks before the ruling against Kellogg’s, Ferrero and Eat Natural, a subsidiary of Ferrero, also sent pre-action letters over the same regulations.”
The Lighthouse Reports article said: “Bad diets kill millions of people globally every year, and lead to tens of billions of dollars in health costs, often placing the heaviest burden on communities who are least able to afford it. Children, with limited decision-making power, are particularly vulnerable to this.
“Legislators and government officials have worked to rein in this public health crisis by enacting laws that require food companies to be transparent about their ingredients and limit the advertising of unhealthy foods.
“In public, the world’s biggest and richest food companies such as Coca Cola, PepsiCola, and Mondelez say they want to be part of the solution. But behind closed doors, they have taken governments to court to delay, dilute, and derail public health laws, which the companies say violate their rights.
“This cross-border collaboration with health academics and an international media coalition shed light on how transnational corporations use legal tactics – lawsuits and legal threats – to stymie public health efforts in six countries where such tactics are most apparent: Mexico, Brazil, Colombia, India, Britain, and the United States.”
The Lighthouse Reports described the criteria for their study: “We constructed a dataset of challenges to laws aiming to improve population nutrition between 2010 and 2025 in these countries: Mexico, Colombia, Brazil, U.S., UK, and India.
“With the exception of India, cases were included when a regulation that sought to improve public health through better nutrition was being challenged (i.e. validity, scope, or implementation). We made an exception for cases in India where influencers were being sued, as they were taking over the role of the government in making the nutritional value of products more transparent.
“We only included cases that were verifiable through official legal databases, court records, or reputable secondary sources.”
Acknowledging that some large food companies had reported progress in making their products healthier, Mr Ghebreyesus said: “These efforts are welcome, but they are not sufficient on their own to meet the scale of this global health crisis. To contribute meaningfully to the solution, companies should also end litigation and other tactics that strain limited government resources and hinder efforts to protect public health.”
However, Mr Ghebreyesus added that if UPF brands were serious about helping to tackle obesity, they should drop the lawsuits, as he urged governments to continue adopting the public health measures they were being sued over: “Momentum for change is building, and WHO remains committed to supporting these efforts every step of the way.”
Read the Lighthouse Reports investigation findings
Read the DRWF diabetes information resource A healthy diet and diabetes here
Read more about type 2 diabetes
I would like to make a regular donation of
There are lots of ways to raise money to support
people living with all forms of diabetes.
Bake, Swim, Cycle, Fly ... Do It For DRWF!
Fundraise with us
Recent News
