How Organic Insider operates: We accept no advertising, we have no paywalls and we make our newsletters free to everyone because vital information about our industry needs to get out to as many people as possible. Please consider becoming an Organic Insider+ subscriber, whether you are an individual or a company. Thank you so much.
In a stunning development, San Francisco has filed the nation’s first government lawsuit against major food manufacturers over ultra-processed foods (UPFs), testing how far courts will go in holding Big Food responsible for diet-related disease.
For the organic industry, this represents a generational opening — one that aligns squarely with what organic has championed since its inception: an alternative to the industrial, pesticide-laden food system, even as new lines are being drawn around how “clean” food is defined.
City Attorney David Chiu is suing ten companies — including Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, Kraft Heinz, Post Holdings and General Mills — arguing that their products have driven chronic illness while shifting enormous healthcare costs onto local governments.
“It makes me sick that generations of kids and parents are being deceived and buying food that’s not food,” Chiu told The New York Times.
That assertion of harm is backed by a landmark 2024 global review showing that UPFs are linked to damage across every major organ system of the body.
According to a 2025 report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, about 55% of all U.S. calories now come from ultra-processed foods — and among children and teens, the figure is nearly 62%.
ORGANIC MUST CAPITALIZE ON THIS OPENING
The lawsuit throws a spotlight on the long list of additives that define modern UPFs: emulsifiers, stabilizers, artificial colors, synthetic flavoring agents, flavor enhancers, non-nutritive sweeteners and engineered sugars. California’s newly enacted AB 1264 — the first state law to legally define UPFs, albeit within the K–12 context — codifies many of these substances as markers of ultra-processing.
USDA organic certification prohibits or strictly limits many of these ingredients, and it offers something the broader UPF category rarely can: transparency, traceability and federally regulated standards — while some certified organic products still qualify as ultra-processed based on how they are formulated.
If the lawsuit moves into the discovery phase and internal documents reveal how aggressively companies engineered foods for hyper-palatability, shelf life and cost efficiency — perhaps knowingly at the expense of children’s health — the value of organic becomes even more apparent. The contrast between foods created to nourish and foods designed to manipulate will only grow sharper.
But this is more than a legal battle; it signals a fundamental shift in the food marketplace.
As schools, retailers and institutional buyers begin reevaluating UPFs — especially in states poised to adopt their own definitions — organic is uniquely positioned to meet the rising demand for foods that deliver integrity, safety and nutrition when supported by clear non-UPF processing standards.
The growing scrutiny of UPFs, paired with this high-profile lawsuit, may finally provide the catalyst for organic to break through its long-standing single-digit market share ceiling. Conditions have never been more favorable for the industry to clearly define what non-UPF organic actually looks like — and why nutrient-dense, soil-forward foods with minimal processing will shape the future of public health and wellness.
“Lawsuits like San Francisco’s tend to accelerate brand behavior, not just public debate, and organic could be a massive beneficiary of this shift if it effectively leans into its original value proposition,” said Megan Westgate, executive director of the Non-UPF Verified program. “Our research shows that concern about how food is processed now rivals or exceeds other familiar attributes, and this dynamic is exactly why we’ve invested in building a rigorous Non-UPF Verification program that helps translate growing demand into real, accountable change.”
 |
With gratitude, 
Max Goldberg, Founder |
The retraction came years after internal corporate documents first revealed in 2017 that Monsanto employees were heavily involved in drafting the paper.
Despite this increased attention on our nation's soil, non-profit group Friends of the Earth contends that without increased staff and pesticide limits, this initiative falls short.
The Domestic Organic Investment Act would give organic producers tools to increase capacity and modernize operations, as well as while making permanent a USDA program that helps solve supply chain gaps.
Following a severe 2025 drought, producers face hay costs exceeding $600/ton, depleted feed reserves and escalating herd culls.
The deal marks the first acquisition since Horizon announced its intention to build out its portfolio with a stable of better-for-you brands earlier this year.
A few of the trends include creatine, personalized nutritional guidance and magnesium-based body care products.
In a new report from Systemiq -- and funded by the Grantham Foundation for the Protection of the Environment -- toxic chemicals used in the global food system is costing trillions in annual healthcare costs (2-3 % of global GDP).
The financing round of the pea milk producer attracted new investors Material Impact and Rich Products Ventures, as well as returning backers S2G Investments, Prelude Ventures and others.
The world's leading live entertainment company has taken a stake in the organic sparkling tonic company.
In a massive step backward, the EU has agreed allow certain foods altered using genetic engineering techniques to be sold without special labeling under a new framework.
Want to share this newsletter on social media? You can use this link: Newsletter Link
