There is much current interest in the media about Ultra Processed Foods (“UPFs”) and the health risks they are thought to present.
Actions are being brought in the US against food and beverage companies in respect of numerous health problems suffered by consumers caused, it is alleged, by the consumption of UPFs. It is perhaps likely that similar claims will follow in the UK.
When people talk about UPFs they are often referring to foods that fall within the ‘NOVA’ classification for UPFs, which are described as “products made mostly or entirely from processed ingredients and additives such as colouring, artificial sweeteners, anti-caking agents and emulsifiers”. The term ‘ultra-processed foods’ as used in the NOVA classification has become widely recognised and commonly used.
Examples of UPFs include items such as soft drinks, packaged snacks, reconstituted meat products, prepared frozen dishes, and many ‘ready meals’.
Not all foods which would fall within the description of UPF are unhealthy. For example, many foods like wholemeal breads, canned fruits and vegetables, would fall into the processed or ultra-processed category; but when people talk about the health risks posed by UPFs they are usually referring to the unhealthy types of UPF.
Evidence published in the medical journal The Lancet in November 2025 indicated that the health risks from a diet high in UPFs include exposure to harmful chemicals and additives, poor nutrition and overeating.
Other studies have suggested that UPFs can cause obesity, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, IBS, and increased risk of early onset colorectal cancer.
In December 2024 a claim was brought in the US courts by Bryce Martinez against a group of manufacturers of UPFs, including Kraft Heinz, Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, General Mills, Nestle, Kelloggs, Mars, and others.
Martinez claimed that his consumption of UPFs manufactured by these companies caused him to develop type 2 diabetes and fatty liver disease, at age 16. He also claimed that these UPF manufacturers targeted children in marketing campaigns, deliberately created addictive products, and failed to warn of the health risks their products posed.
The Court expressed sympathy with Martinez, but his case was dismissed on the basis that he had failed to identify the specific UPF products he had consumed, when he had consumed them, and in what quantities; he had failed to adequately plead his case on causation; and failed to adequately identify which acts and/or omissions were attributable to which specific UPF manufacturer defendant.
In December 2025, a claim was brought by the City of San Franciso against some of the same UPF manufacturers, alleging that these companies breached California’s Unfair Competition Law and for public nuisance, in respect of alleged deceptive acts in connection with these companies’ practices in relation to the sale and marketing of UPF products.
There is growing interest in the US in bringing claims against UPF manufacturers. It remains to be seen whether retailers may also be a future target for such claims.
Litigation trends in the US tend to be followed in the UK, and already some UK claimant law firms are exploring the possibility of bringing similar claims here. Class actions are likely to prove attractive for claimant firms, helped by the availability of litigation funding in the UK.
It will be interesting to see whether claims may be brought within the current UK legal framework under the Consumer Protection Act (on the basis that UPFs are defective as their “safety is not such as persons are entitled to expect”), negligence, and/or misrepresentation.
As the Martinez case suggests, causation is likely to prove a challenge for consumer claimants. It may seem a stretch now, but claimants may seek to extend the scope of the principles from decisions like Fairchild, in mesothelioma claims, to apply to UPFs claims, to enable a finding against a manufacturer defendant that materially increased the risk of injury even where it cannot be proven that its UPFs actually caused the claimant’s injury.
Food and beverage companies, and their insurers, would be advised to assess whether and to what extent the products they manufacture and/or sell are likely to be classed as UPF and to keep an eye on developments with UPF litigation both in the US and in the UK. They should also consider to what extent there is potential exposure for this emerging risk as well as what coverage is required to meet this.
Designed to elevate the policyholder experience and empower handlers, ClaimPilot transforms the claims journey with state-of-the-art AI, streamlined processes and reduced operational bottlenecks – all in one powerful platform.
