Sarah Gallo, the Consumer Brands Association’s senior vice president, said nutrition science has no settled definition of ultra-processed food.
A Washington Parish woman is suing major U.S. food companies such as Kraft Heinz Co. and General Mills Inc., claiming her development of Type 2 Diabetes and non-alcoholic fatty liver disease was due to the industry’s “ultra-processed foods,” or UPF.
Plaintiff Shastin Jenkins filed the federal lawsuit against Nestle USA, Mars Inc., the Coca-Cola Co. and others Jan. 16 in the Eastern District of Louisiana, arguing that the development and marketing of addictive UPF foods used the “cigarette playbook” to get children and other Americans dependent on processed foods largely devoid of nutrients.
“In the 1980s, Big Tobacco took over the American food environment,” the complaint states. “Phillip Morris bought major US food companies, including General Foods and Kraft. RJ Reynolds purchased Nabisco, Del Monte, Kentucky Fried Chicken and others.”
The lawsuit, which is similar to other lawsuits filed nationwide against major food manufacturers over UPF health issues, defines these types of foods as “industrially produced edible substances” made with fractioned food ingredients and chemical modifications that are then reassembled into products high in sugar, fats or additives.
The plaintiffs regularly and chronically ingested UPF products and as a result contracted devastating diseases at the age of 14, according to the lawsuit. The complaint lists multiple commercial products as falling under the definition of UPFs, such as Kool Aid, Oreo cookies, Doritos, Froot Loops, soft drinks and Frosted Pop-Tarts.
The Consumer Brands Association, however, has pushed back against the idea that the food companies are purposely pursuing strategies that cause illness.
“American consumers continue to seek a diverse selection of foods and beverages, and the makers of America’s trusted household brands provide a wide variety of products to choose from, along with access to the information consumers need to make informed choices,” Sarah Gallo, the association’s senior vice president, said in a statement emailed to the Louisiana Record. “There is currently no agreed-upon scientific definition of ultra-processed foods.”
The food companies follow science-based safety standards established by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in their efforts to deliver “safe, affordable and convenient products” to American consumers, according to Gallo.
“Americans deserve facts based on sound science in order to make the best choices for their lifestyle needs,” she said.
But the lawsuit claims that the food companies used the same kind of brain research “to design UPF to hack physiological structures of our brains” as tobacco companies used to ramp up the addictiveness of their products.
“Studies of how electrical messages are transmitted throughout the central nervous system are used to formulate UPF products,” the complaint says. “For example, scientists who supervised human electrode tests on nicotine’s addictiveness at a secret Phillip Morris laboratory in Germany regularly consulted with Kraft and General Foods on the development of UPF.”
A website sponsored by the law firm Saiontz & Kirk P.A. noted that health advocates have been advising that UPFs can encourage compulsive eating and contribute to diseases.
“In response to these concerns, attorneys across the country are investigating ultra-processed food lawsuits for individuals who were introduced to these products early in life, and developed Type 2 Diabetes or non-alcoholic fatty liver disease while still children,” the law firm reported.
The lawsuit seeks damages of more than $75,000, not including attorney fees and legal costs, as a result of the companies’ “willful, wanton and malicious” actions. The plaintiff is seeking compensation including exemplary and punitive damages and alleges violations of the Louisiana Product Liability Act, negligence and unfair trade practices.
