Court tosses UPF lawsuit against food companies

PHILADELPHIA — A federal judge has thrown out a lawsuit against 11 US food and beverage manufacturers by a Philadelphia man who claimed their “ultra-processed food” (UPF) products led to his diagnosis with type 2 diabetes and non-alcoholic fatty liver disease as a teen.

In the case, Philadelphia resident Bryce Martinez alleged that the companies – Kraft Heinz Co., Mondelez International, Post Holdings Inc., The Coca-Cola Co., PepsiCo Inc., General Mills Inc., Nestle USA Inc., Mars Inc., Conagra Brands Inc., Kellanova (now part of Mars) and WK Kellogg Co (now part of Ferrero Group) – produced “unreasonably dangerous food products and failed to warn customers of known risks associated with UPFs.”

Martinez originally filed the suit, Martinez v. Kraft Heinz Company Inc. et al, as an 18-year-old in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County in December 2024, and the next month the case was moved to federal court. Then in August 2025, the US District Court for Eastern Pennsylvania rejected the complaint for lack of cause, explaining that it failed to establish how Martinez’s consumption of the food companies’ products caused his condition. On June 30, 2026, US District Judge Mia Roberts Perez dismissed the case on essentially the same grounds in denying Martinez’s motion to amend the complaint.

“The FAC (first amended complaint) raises serious concerns about the UPF industry and its effects on children’s health,” Perez wrote in her decision. “However, the law does not allow Martinez to hold liable an entire industry for these allegations. The FAC fails to establish but-for causation because it lacks sufficient facts showing each defendant (company) or product individually caused or contributed to his harm.”

“Shotgun approach” singled out

Now about 20 years old, Martinez was first diagnosed with type 2 diabetes (T2D) and non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) at age 16 after having regularly consumed 179 products made by the food companies and described as UPFs between 2009 and 2021, according to the June 30 court ruling. Products cited included Kraft Singles American Cheese, Oscar Mayer Bologna, Capri Sun Fruit Punch Juice Drink and Philadelphia Original Cream Cheese Spread, among others.

The complaint charged that the products contained “varying harmful substances,” included allegations “purporting to establish causation” and “suggests that, in addition to the additives or ingredients, the processing techniques used to produce UPFs are dangerous,” the document said.

However, the court determined the amended complaint still failed to connect Martinez’s consumption of the products with his health diagnosis and took a “shotgun approach” by not identifying “who is responsible for what” in terms of the companies and products that he claimed led to his condition.

“Martinez alleges a correlation between increasing rates of childhood T2D and NAFLD and rates of UPF consumption,” Perez explained in the ruling. “Historically, diseases like T2D and NAFLD were only found in adult patients, and he alleges the rise of the UPF industry since the 1980s to be responsible for the corresponding rise of pediatric diagnoses in that time. The FAC shows a concerning correlation between the rise of the UPF industry and pediatric illness. However, Pennsylvania law requires more than correlation — it requires causation. The correlation between the rise in UPFs and the rise in childhood T2D and NAFLD does not amount to causation attributable to each of the 179 products Martinez consumed. Martinez’s FAC again fails to establish that each of the 179 products named necessarily contributed to his injuries.”

The UPF question

The Consumer Brands Association applauded the Martinez case ruling, with chief operating officer and general counsel Stacy Papadopoulos noting that “America’s trusted household brands adhere to rigorous science- and risk-based safety standards established by the FDA.”

“The dismissal of the Martinez lawsuit reinforces what Consumer Brands has said from the beginning: These claims are without merit,” Papadopoulos said. “Twice, the court has rejected plaintiff’s efforts to impose liability on an arbitrarily selected group of companies for the complex health outcomes alleged in this case. The judge fully dismissed the case, finding any further attempts to amend plaintiff’s claim would be futile.”

Papadopoulos added, “Consumer Brands remains committed to working with policymakers, regulators and public health experts to advance comprehensive policies rooted in objective, evidence-based science that keep food safe, affordable and accessible.”

The Martinez decision also addressed the topic of UPFs, a nebulous term still in search of a widely accepted definition. About a year ago, the US Department of Health and Human Services and the US Department of Agriculture published a joint request for information seeking input to set a uniform standard for UPFs. A UPF definition from that effort is expected soon, according to published reports.

“Despite federal educational efforts to advocate for healthful living over the decades and alleged bountiful research evidencing the harmful effects of processing foods, UPFs are not, themselves, a regulated class of products within the law,” Perez wrote in her June 30 ruling. “In other words, UPFs and their producers are held to the same legal standards as any other food products, processed or not.”

That point could loom large in other pending lawsuits – by government or individuals – against food companies over UPFs. In December 2025, theSan Francisco city attorney’s office sued 11 US food and beverage makers(the same companies named in the Martinez suit), claiming that for decades they formulated and marketed “ultra-processed foods” with ingredients that hooked consumers on their products and harmed public health. And this past April, a Wisconsin woman filed suit in federal court (Kreie v. Kraft Heinz et al), alleging that her consumption of UPF products from the same 11 companies and Unilever led to her development of type 2 diabetes.