Litigation or Education: Which Is Better for Addressing Healthcare Costs Linked to Ultra-Processed Foods?

Just this week, the San Francisco City Attorney filed the nation's first government lawsuit against major food corporations over ultra-processed foods (UPFs).

This forces us to ask a critical question: Where should cities and states focus their limited resources for the greatest public health impact?

The lawsuit seeks to hold corporations accountable for the skyrocketing healthcare costs of diseases linked to UPFs, including cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, and various cancers. UPFs are also associated with an increased risk of obesity, metabolic syndrome, certain gastrointestinal conditions like Crohn's disease, and colorectal polyps. But is a costly, multi-year legal battle the most effective lever for systemic change?

Consider the power of the consumer. If local governments dedicated more resources to widespread, pro-health education - assisting in providing healthier options, showing citizens how to choose whole, simple ingredients and why it matters - sales (and consumption) of UPFs would naturally fall.

As consumer demand shifts, these companies would be forced to innovate, reformulate, or risk going out of business. This creates permanent market change, driven by choice, not court orders. And wholesome food choices can lead to a healthier country and lower public healthcare costs.

Do we prioritize forcing accountability (litigation) or empowering the public (education) to drive the market away from ultra-processed fare? Time will tell which approach is the more powerful engine for a healthier country.