Global Investigation Reveals Big Food Industry Use of Lawsuits to Block Health Policies
2 sources across 2 countries · Brazil · South Africa
Who reported this
- Agencia Publica
- Daily Maverick
What the colours mean
- Left
- Centre-left
- Centre
- Centre-right
- Right
- A hatched block means the outlet is affiliated with, or controlled by, a state.
Political lean describes where an outlet sits within the politics of its own country. It is never a position on a single global scale.
Political lean is comparable inside one country and not across them, which is why the bar groups by country first. Publicly funded broadcasters are not marked as state-linked.
The owner of each outlet is listed as a matter of record, not as a judgement about the outlet.
A transnational investigation involving Lighthouse Reports, The Guardian, and other partners has found that ultra processed food manufacturers have filed over 200 lawsuits against governments to obstruct health policies since 2010. These legal actions took place in countries including Mexico, Colombia, Brazil, the United States, the United Kingdom, and India. While approximately 75 to 80 percent of these cases were lost by the industry, the litigation has served to delay regulations and weaken regulatory bodies. World Health Organization Director General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus stated that these delays cost nations billions in health and legal expenses and create a regulatory chilling effect that discourages governments from adopting essential protections.
Of the identifiable plaintiffs, a significant portion of the lawsuits were brought by a small group of parent corporations, including Coca Cola, PepsiCo, Mondelēz, Kellogg's, Danone, and Ferrero. The investigation noted that companies often combine litigation with warnings about job losses and declining investment to shape political debate. In Europe, only 13 out of 40 countries have a dedicated sugar tax, with others postponing or watering down measures due to industry opposition. In Brazil, a specific Anvisa resolution regarding food advertising has remained without practical effect for 16 years due to multiple legal challenges.
The WHO recommends measures such as nutritional labeling, restrictions on unhealthy food advertising, and taxes on sugary drinks to combat obesity and poor health outcomes. In July 2025, the WHO launched the 3 by 35 initiative, which aims to increase the real prices of tobacco, alcohol, and sugary drinks by at least 50 percent by 2035 through tax increases. While the center left source emphasizes the environmental impact of production and the specific health crisis in Africa, the left source focuses on the systemic inequality and the specific accusations made by the WHO Director General regarding the industry's interference.
How each side framed it
- Left
- The report frames the issue as a systemic struggle against corporate interference in human rights and public health, highlighting the role of global inequality.
- Centre-left
- The report frames the issue as a conflict between corporate profit and public health, emphasizing environmental costs and food insecurity in Africa.
Sources
100% of the statements in this article were traced back to the source articles listed above.