The world’s largest producers of ultra-processed foods (UPF) have mounted extensive legal challenges against government policies designed to curb junk food consumption, an investigation has revealed. Between 2010 and 2025, at least 235 lawsuits were filed across Mexico, Colombia, Brazil, the United States, and the United Kingdom targeting measures such as front-of-pack warning labels, taxes on unhealthy foods, and marketing restrictions.

While companies publicly express support for initiatives aimed at improving public health, the litigation campaign signals strong resistance behind the scenes. Approximately three-quarters of the lawsuits were brought by UPF manufacturers or trade associations. Among the most active litigants identified were Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, Mondelēz, Kellogg’s, Danone, Ferrero, Xignux, and Heartland Food Products Group. However, many legal filings concealed the identity of the plaintiffs.

Mexico accounted for the majority of these cases, with 193 lawsuits filed, followed by Colombia and Brazil. Legal specialists note that Latin America’s early adoption of stringent food environment policies has made it a focal point for industry pushback. Complaints most frequently challenged product labeling rules, followed by taxes and marketing restrictions.

Despite losing about 75% of resolved cases, the litigation has exacted a considerable toll on governments, often delaying policy implementation by years and demanding significant legal and administrative resources. Experts warn that such tactics resemble those previously employed by the tobacco industry, where prolonged court battles aim not just to win but to deter future regulation efforts and intimidate policymakers.

Ultra-processed foods, which are manufactured using artificial ingredients and industrial processes, are linked to adverse health outcomes including poor nutrition and diseases affecting multiple organ systems. Their low cost and high accessibility have led to their rising consumption worldwide, now constituting up to half of the average diet in some countries, including the UK.

Public health authorities have sought to combat this trend through regulatory measures. However, the food industry has employed a range of strategies — including lobbying, forming partnerships, and influencing scientific discourse — to counteract these measures. For example, in 2023 the UK government withdrew guidance recommending promotion of minimally processed foods following pressures from the sector. Further controversy arose when a majority of members on an expert panel critiquing UPF warnings were linked to major industry players.

Legal and academic experts stress that the lawsuits function as a form of strategic delay, with some court battles cumulatively lasting nearly 600 years. Marion Nestle, a professor of nutrition and public health at New York University, said the intensity of the legal efforts indicates that industry views such policies as a threat to sales. She added that food companies are adopting legal strategies similar to those used historically by tobacco firms.

Officials and researchers also cite the complex regulatory environment, especially in countries like the UK, where industry involvement in drafting governance frameworks has created loopholes and regulatory paralysis. University College London professor Chris van Tulleken described how the threat of litigation has contributed to government hesitancy in pursuing more robust health regulations.

Representatives from Coca-Cola, Ferrero, and Danone stated their commitment to collaboration with governments and public health authorities to address diet-related challenges. They emphasized engagement around policy clarity rather than opposition to public health goals. Other major firms contacted did not respond to requests for comment.

This extensive litigation highlights the ongoing tensions between public health initiatives and the economic interests of the global UPF industry, underscoring the complex dynamics shaping efforts to address diet-related diseases worldwide.