Huge multi-national ultra-processed food companies have initiated a proliferation of litigation, frequently litigating aggressively to impede or delay government efforts to curb consumption of their products linked to the rise of the obesity, diabetes and other diet related diseases. A recent comprehensive global survey highlights hundreds of litigations filed against public health policy and confirms a pattern of popular resistance against government measures, which federal health officials argue prevents effective intervention at a moment when scientific consensus over the detrimental effects of these foods is more definitive. Since 2010, over 235 lawsuits have been filed against governments across Mexico Colombia Brazil, the U.S. and the U.K.
over regulations aimed at ultra-processed foods. Most came from Latin America, where many countries have been pioneers of pioneering measures like front-of-package warning labels, sugar taxes and marketing restrictions to children. Three quarters of the lawsuits could be identified as coming from food producers or their trade groups. Among the most prolific plaintiffs have been some of the largest players in the global food industry. The World Health Organization has been vocal. The director-general went so far as to call the litigation an intentional attack against or undermining of measures that help protect health, observing that the lawsuits have totalled nearly six hundred years of legal time and have placed heavy burdens on governments already weakened by the fallout from bad diets.
Almost a billion people around the world are obese, and bad diets are one of the leading causes of heart disease, type 2 diabetes and several cancers. For the companies involved, the lawsuits are an attempt to defend their right to sell products that make up a significant proportion of the modern diet. Ultra-processed foods are all characterized by being rich in salt, sugar and unhealthful fats, produced to maximize shelf life, flavor, and convenience for both the shopper and the processor.
Within the industry, there has long been a belief that consumer education and personal responsibility are the way forward, rather than more regulation, and in policy battles, many solutions are overly complex, based on poor science, or in breach of trade agreements. Companies have sought to undermine the rationale for labelling initiatives, taxes and marketing bans in court cases. Public health proponents Still do not view the picture as clearly.
They point to the history of proven strategies carried out by the tobacco industry, arguing that protracted legal battles establish a “chilling effect” that prevents other governments from following. In cases where the time delays do not trigger victory, the ensuing years afford the tobacco industry the opportunity to keep going certain consumption behaviors indefinitely. The nations whose leadership was able to stand, above the subsequent years behind the table, deprive their citizens of resources that would facilitate national health initiatives.
The investigation has further demonstrated a certain level of a deliberate strategy of many companies totry to maintain anonymity, Mainly in some cases, Because of this concealing from the public the extent of the opposition to the industry in total. The pattern is still discernable enough that the FCTC Secretariat and researchers could reliably describe it assystematic.
