WHO: Ultra-Processed Food Firms Use Lawsuits to Block Health Policies

# WHO: Ultra-Processed Food Firms Use Lawsuits to Block Health Policies

The World Health Organization has issued a stark warning that multinational food and beverage corporations are actively suing governments to derail public health policies aimed at reducing consumption of ultra-processed foods. In a report released on Wednesday, the WHO said such legal tactics are becoming a routine tool for the industry to weaken or delay regulations on sugary drinks, high-fat snacks, and processed meats.

The report, titled "Tackling Illegal Interference with Public Health Policies," documents dozens of cases in countries ranging from Mexico and Chile to more recent actions in Latin America, Asia, and Europe. WHO Director-General Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said the trend "threatens to undo years of progress in the fight against obesity, diabetes, and other diet-related diseases."

The Rise of Legal Intimidation

According to the WHO, the food industry has moved beyond lobbying and public relations campaigns toward more aggressive legal strategies. These include lawsuits filed in national courts challenging the constitutionality of health measures, as well as investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) claims under free trade agreements. The agency warns that even when governments win these cases, the costs in time, money, and political capital are enormous.

The report specifically points to front-of-package nutrition warning labels — a policy adopted by Mexico, Chile, Peru, and Uruguay — as a common target. In several instances, multinational corporations have argued that such labels violate trademark rights or impede free trade. The WHO notes that these claims are often filed by the same companies that have committed to "responsible marketing" in public statements.

One notable example cited in the report is an ISDS claim filed against Mexico under the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership. A major food company sought compensation for lost profits after Mexico introduced warning labels for products high in calories, salt, sugar, or saturated fat. Although the case was ultimately dismissed, the WHO says the mere threat of multi-million-dollar claims creates a chilling effect on other countries.

Corporate Strategy or Public Health Necessity?

Experts long observing the food industry say this is not a novel strategy. Similar tactics were used by the tobacco industry decades ago, and the WHO has published internal industry documents revealing coordinated efforts to challenge regulations.

"The playbook is identical: delay, distract, and litigate," said Dr. Mariana Ribeiro, a public health law researcher at the University of São Paulo, in an interview with the BBC. "Companies know that even a failed lawsuit can set policy back by years, and that is often enough to keep harmful products on the shelves and influence consumer choices."

Industry groups have rejected the WHO's characterization. The International Food and Beverage Alliance, which represents global giants such as Nestlé, PepsiCo, and Coca-Cola, issued a statement saying its members "support science-based regulation and are committed to reformulating products." The group added that legal challenges are a "last resort" to ensure regulatory processes are fair, transparent, and grounded in evidence.

However, the WHO report argues that the evidence in favor of warning labels is overwhelming. Studies from Chile, which implemented label and marketing restrictions in 2016, show a significant drop in purchases of high-sugar beverages and a reduction in the average calorie content of packaged foods. Mexico's soda tax, implemented in 2014, also demonstrated a measurable decline in consumption, particularly among low-income households.

The Cost of Corporate Litigation

The legal pressure extends beyond labeling. The WHO identifies taxes on sugary drinks, restrictions on marketing to children, and limits on the placement of unhealthy products in stores as other frequent points of dispute. The report also mentions threats of commercial retaliation disguised as international trade disputes.

Dr. Tedros warned that such actions disproportionately affect low- and middle-income countries, which often lack the legal infrastructure to defend against high-profile corporate lawsuits. A single ISDS case can cost a government millions of dollars in legal fees and arbitration expenses — funds that could otherwise be spent on health clinics, nutrition programs, or other preventive services.

"When a company sues a country for introducing a health tax, they are effectively taxing the country twice," said Dr. Tedros in a press conference. "First through the lost revenue and second through the legal bill."

A Growing Global Health Crisis

Ultra-processed foods are now a leading contributor to the global burden of disease. They account for roughly half of calorie intake in many high-income countries and are rapidly increasing in middle-income nations. Such products are engineered to be hyper-palatable, often containing high levels of salt, sugar, unhealthy fats, and chemical additives. Studies link their consumption to obesity, type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, certain cancers, and other chronic conditions.

The WHO has repeatedly called for governments to adopt policies that create food environments conducive to health. But the new report suggests that even the most evidence-based measures are being suppressed by corporate legal tactics.

"This is a systemic issue that requires a systemic response," the report concludes. It urges governments to introduce legislation protecting their right to regulate for public health, and to include clauses that prevent corporations from using trade agreements to override domestic policy. The WHO also proposes a rapid-response mechanism to help low-income countries handle legal threats.

What Happens Next?

The WHO is asking member states to report any attempts by the food industry to use legal means to obstruct health laws, creating a global database of such cases. The agency is also negotiating with international trade bodies to clarify that public health measures should not be considered trade barriers.

Some governments have already begun to push back. In Mexico, recent legislative efforts have sought to ban ISDS claims from any future trade agreements. In Brazil, the Supreme Court ruled in 2023 that a state-level tax on sugary drinks was constitutional, despite a challenge from a major soda distributor. The European Union's Farm to Fork strategy also includes commitments to make front-of-package labeling mandatory across the block by 2026.

Nevertheless, the WHO says legal attacks are expected to intensify as more countries adopt stricter regulations. The agency's report closes with a clear call to action: "Governments must not be deterred by the threat of litigation. The health of people is more important than the profit margin of a product."

A Broader Could Affect Other Regulators

Public health advocates see the WHO's report as a warning that extends beyond diets. They note that the same legal tactics are being used by fossil fuel companies to contest climate policies and by the tobacco industry to fight plain packaging and ban smoking in public places. The report's recommendations — including technical assistance for vulnerable nations and the creation of a legal defense fund — could set a precedent for defending public interest regulations across multiple sectors.

For now, the immediate battle remains in courtrooms and arbitration tribunals. But the WHO hopes that by exposing these strategies, it can change the political calculus for both countries and corporations handling the poorest countries' regulatory independence.

As global rates of obesity continue to rise — the WHO estimates that over 1 billion adults are now living with obesity — the urgency to act grows ever clearer. Whether governments can withstand the legal pressure will likely determine the future of global food policy for decades to come.