Big Food vs. The People: How Global Food Corporations Use Litigation to Block Public Health Laws

Major global food and beverage corporations are utilizing extensive legal strategies to obstruct public health regulations aimed at combating obesity and diet-related diseases. An investigation involving a coalition of international media and health academics found that between 2010 and 2025, 239 lawsuits were filed across Mexico, Colombia, Brazil, the United States, the United Kingdom, and India to challenge policies such as front-of-pack labeling, junk food advertising restrictions, and taxes on ultra-processed foods.

The Scale of Industry Litigation

Large food corporations use lawsuits and legal threats to stymie government efforts to improve population nutrition. The investigation identifies a concentrated effort by a small number of industry giants:

  • Concentrated Plaintiffs: More than one in three lawsuits brought by identifiable private companies originated from just nine parent groups, led by Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, and Mondelez.
  • Litigation Burden: The identified cases represent a cumulative 595 years of litigation, creating a massive administrative and financial burden on governments defending their health policies.
  • Chilling Effect: The threat of drawn-out legal battles discourages policymakers from implementing health-focused regulations, particularly in regions with limited resources.

Regional Strategies for Obstructing Health Laws

Industry tactics vary by region, ranging from direct constitutional challenges to indirect lobbying and the use of proxy plaintiffs.

Mexico: The Primary Battleground

Mexico saw the highest volume of litigation, with 193 of the 239 total lawsuits. Most of these targeted labeling regulations. Companies argued that such laws violated constitutional rights and "demonized" their products. In one instance, a local Pepsi bottler argued that soft drinks were safer than available water in certain rural areas.

Brazil: Use of Industry Associations

In Brazil, 17 lawsuits were identified, some lasting nearly two decades. To protect their brand image, companies typically filed suits through industry associations rather than under their own names. Members of these associations include Coca-Cola, Ferrero, Kellogg’s, Mars, Mondelez, Nestl… and PepsiCo. Eleven of these cases targeted the Brazilian Health Regulatory Agency (ANVISA), specifically disputing regulations on advertising low-nutritional-value foods.

Colombia: Proxy Plaintiffs and Political Donations

Colombia recorded 18 lawsuits, primarily targeting health taxes and labeling. While many were filed as constitutional challenges by individual citizens, research indicates many plaintiffs were lawyers who had previously worked for food companies. Additionally, in 2022, sugary beverage and ultra-processed food companies donated 5.85 million Euros to political parties, representing 40% of all political donations that year.

United States: Community Influence and Local Taxes

In the U.S., the American Beverage Association (ABA) has been a central actor, filing four of the identified lawsuits. The ABA has attempted to overturn soda taxes, such as in Santa Cruz, and has been found to recruit Black and Latino leaders to amplify opposition to public health taxes within their own communities.

Europe and England: Pre-emptive Threats and Nutrient Profiling

In Europe, industry groups often use legal threats regarding EU state-aid and internal-market rules to delay legislation before it is even adopted. In England, companies like Kellogg’s, Ferrero, and Eat Natural have used "pre-action letters" to challenge nutrient profiling models. Kellogg’s specifically argued that the health rating of its cereals should be measured including the milk with which they are consumed.

India: Regulatory Stalling and Influencer Lawsuits

India's front-of-pack labeling regulation has been stalled since 2014 due to a lack of consensus between industry and civil society. While the government hesitates, food companies have filed lawsuits against Instagram influencers who analyzed ingredient labels to provide nutritional transparency to consumers.

Synthesis of Perspectives and Counterpoints

While the investigation highlights a systemic effort to block health laws, discussions among observers suggest several counter-perspectives:

  • Legal Rights: Some argue that companies are exercising their legitimate constitutional rights to challenge taxes or restrictions that they perceive as unfair or overreaching.
  • Process as Delay: Critics of the industry's tactics note that the outcome of the case is often less important than the duration of the litigation. As one observer noted, "even when governments eventually win the process itself can be delay policy for years."
  • Industry Justification: Some suggest that companies are simply protecting their business interests against government intervention in the free market, similar to how any other industry would respond to new taxes or advertising restrictions.

Sources