A legal turning point in the fight against ultra-processed foods?

By Jag Jivan 

A recent New York Times opinion piece titled "This Teen Took on a $10 Trillion Industry. We Might All Be Healthier Because of Him", by Julia Belluz, co-author of "Food Intelligence," has highlighted what a senior expert believes is a pivotal moment in the struggle for a healthier food environment. The article focuses on the case of Bryce Martinez, a 20-year-old who developed Type 2 diabetes and fatty liver disease at age 16. Martinez filed a personal injury lawsuit against 11 major food manufacturers, including Kraft Heinz, Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, and Nestlé, alleging that their ultra-processed products caused his chronic illnesses.

Belluz draws a powerful historical parallel: "In the 1990s, state attorneys general started to sue the tobacco companies for a public health crisis that taxpayers were largely left paying for. The resulting global settlement restricted tobacco marketing and mandated that companies pay states billions in damages. Legislators finally had the political ammunition to meaningfully restrict smoking." Adult smoking rates plummeted from 42 percent in 1965 to 9 percent in 2025 as a result.

The Martinez lawsuit, though dismissed in Federal District Court due to insufficient evidence to prove specific causation, represents what Belluz calls the "first personal injury case related to ultraprocessed foods" . His lawyers at Morgan & Morgan plan to appeal and continue filing similar lawsuits nationwide. Dr. Allan Brandt, a historian cited in the piece, told Belluz to expect more defeats, noting that tobacco litigation endured "hundreds of losses" before achieving success. Yet Brandt remains optimistic: Americans are "becoming more appropriately skeptical that industry is acting around food in the public's interest."

The Tobacco Connection

Belluz exposes a disturbing historical link between the tobacco and food industries. Philip Morris purchased Kraft in 1988, and R.J. Reynolds acquired major food brands and merged with Nabisco. "The tobacco documents show that cigarette companies applied their knowledge about flavor optimization, youth marketing and brain chemistry to ultraprocessed foods in order to increase profits," she writes.

Researchers have uncovered how processed foods override the body's built-in signals for satiety and nutrition, increasing the risk of Type 2 diabetes and obesity among other chronic diseases. Ashley Gearhardt, a food addiction expert at the University of Michigan, describes the situation bluntly: "As a parent, I feel like there's corporate vultures that are just circling my head waiting for me to have a bad day, so they can swoop in and make my child a lifelong loyalty-aisle to their damaging product."

The Indian Context: A Warning Unheeded

Speaking of this publication, Dr. Arun Gupta draws urgent parallels to India's own nutritional crisis:

"While this is the story of the United States, India is no different. We are witnessing the same patterns of corporate exploitation, the same targeting of children with addictive foods, and the same regulatory failure that allowed tobacco to devastate public health for decades."

Dr. Arun Gupta is Founder of the Breastfeeding Promotion Network of India (BPNI), Convenor of Nutrition Advocacy for Public Interest (NAPi), and Former Member of the Prime Minister's Council on India's Nutrition Challenges.

The numbers are alarming. Sales of ultra-processed foods in India grew more than 150 percent between 2009 and 2023, surging from $0.9 billion in 2006 to nearly $38 billion in 2019—a 40-fold increase. During the same period, obesity nearly doubled in both men and women . Over 3.3 crore children in India were obese in 2020, projected to reach 8.3 crore by 2035.

Dr. Gupta, who played a key role in the Infant Milk Substitutes Act of 1992, reportedly notes: "I have seen how the baby food industry used aggressive marketing to undermine breastfeeding, causing lasting harm to child health. Now, Big Food is deploying similar tactics—marketing ultra-processed junk to children and families, creating a generation hooked on products that make them sick."

He points to the Economic Survey 2026, which has raised concerns about the growing consumption of ultra-processed foods and suggested a "multi-pronged approach"—including banning advertisements for such foods from 6 AM to 11 PM. The survey recommends front-of-pack nutrition labelling with clear warnings, restrictions on marketing to children, and ensuring trade agreements do not undermine public health policy.

But Dr. Gupta warns: "Recommendations alone are insufficient. India needs sharp, immediate regulatory action—restricting advertising, enforcing clear warning labels, and holding companies accountable for products engineered to create dependency. If we wait, we will repeat the tobacco tragedy, where millions suffered while policymakers debated."

He cites the UK's recent ban on junk food advertising before 9 PM and Chile's integrated laws combining warning labels with advertising restrictions as models India can adapt. 

A Path Forward

Belluz's piece notes that polling shows a majority of Americans across the political spectrum now believe ultraprocessed foods can be addictive and that companies deliberately try to hook children. Kelly Brownell, a public health researcher at Duke University, laments: "It's been 30, 40 years now that people have been talking about the toxic nature of the food environment... and almost nothing has happened."

Yet litigation offers hope. Belluz writes: "Litigation forced substantive opioid regulation. It helped curtail the use of leaded paint and asbestos, and made driving safer."

Dr. Gupta concurs: "Litigation creates pressure where legislation fails. As Martinez's case shows, the fight is long and difficult—but necessary. We must demand change at every level: school, workplace, city, country. India cannot afford to wait."

As for Martinez himself, now managing his illnesses with GLP-1 medication at age 20, he reflects: "Convenience ultimately comes at a cost."

Belluz concludes with a provocative question from former FDA Commissioner David Vesker: "Whose choice is driving the demand for ultraprocessed foods in America? Is it a choice by consumers to continue eating them? Or by food companies to maintain the public's dependency on them?"