Sarah Gallo, the Consumer Brands Association’s senior vice president, said the safety of American food products is based on sound science.
A young Florida woman is suing multiple food manufacturers, including Kraft Heinz Co. and General Mills, for $1 billion in damages as a result of health conditions she says she suffered as a result of eating “ultra-processed foods” marketed by the companies.
The federal lawsuit on behalf of Davina Muthusami, who was born in 2006, was filed Jan. 16 in the Middle District of Florida. The complaint defines ultra-processed foods (UPF) as “former foods that have been fractioned into substances, chemically modified, combined with additives, and then reassembled using industrial techniques such as molding, extrusion and pressurization.”
The lawsuit blames the manufacturing and marketing activities of the 11 food manufacturers named as defendants in the case for the plaintiff’s development of Type 2 diabetes, “as well as other severe and personal injuries which are permanent and lasting in nature, physical pain and mental anguish, including diminished enjoyment of life, as well as the need for lifelong medical treatment. …”
The foods mentioned in the complaint as posing health risks to children and others include processed macaroni products, Cheetos, Oreo cookies, Doritos, cereals such as Rice Crispies and soft drinks. Other defendants include Nestle USA and the Coca-Cola Co.
The complaint alleges that expansion of UPF took place in the 1980s after tobacco companies purchased major U.S. food companies and used the same tactics that increased the addictiveness of cigarettes in the marketing and production of UPF.
“In the 1980s, two major tobacco companies … took over the American food environment,” the lawsuit states. “Phillip Morris bought major U.S. food companies, including General Foods and Kraft. RJ Reynolds purchased Nabisco, Del Monte, Kentucky Fried Chicken and others.”
UPF producers adapted the same brain research on sensory perceptions and physiological psychology that led to more addictive tobacco products, according to the complaint.
But the Consumer Brands Association, whose members include food companies, argues that the manufacturers provide a wide variety of food and beverages, combined with nutritional information so that consumers can make informed choices.
“There is currently no agreed-upon scientific definition of ultra-processed foods,” Sarah Gallo, the association’s senior vice president, said in a statement emailed to the Record publications. “Companies adhere to the rigorous evidence-based safety standards and nutrition policy established by the (U.S. Food and Drug Administration) to deliver safe, affordable and convenient products that consumers depend on every day."
The Robert King Law Firm, which tracks UPF litigation, has also acknowledged that settling on a general definition of UPF has not been easy.
“Defining ultra-processed foods has been challenging because these foods encompass categories (like breads, yogurts and cereals) that can contain whole foods, minimally processed foods and ultra-processed foods,” the law firm said in a post.
In a document filed in the Middle District of Florida, plaintiff attorney Chloe Makowsky said the Mathusami case is related to other cases that have been filed around the nation. These include lawsuits filed in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and the Eastern District of Louisiana, as well as a civil lawsuit filed in San Francisco Superior Court by City Attorney David Chiu Kraft.
