---
title: "How big food sues governments to keep unhealthy products on shelves"
description: "Food manufacturers have filed more than 200 lawsuits against governments since 2010, to challenge public health measures that could affect their bottom line. All while Africa is now the most food insecure region in the world and, at the same time, eating cheap, nutrient-poor food continues to rise."
type: "NewsArticle"
publisher: "Daily Maverick"
site: "https://www.dailymaverick.co.za"
section: "CORPORATE RESISTANCE"
author: "Lillian Roberts"
author_url: "https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/author/lillian-roberts/"
canonical_url: "https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article/2026-08-04-how-big-food-sues-governments-to-keep-unhealthy-products-on-shelves/"
published: "2026-08-04T12:02:00"
lang: "en-ZA"
word_count: 1154
---

# How big food sues governments to keep unhealthy products on shelves

> Food manufacturers have filed more than 200 lawsuits against governments since 2010, to challenge public health measures that could affect their bottom line. All while Africa is now the most food insecure region in the world and, at the same time, eating cheap, nutrient-poor food continues to rise.

By Lillian Roberts · Published 4 August 2026, 14:02 SAST

## Key points
- Big Food on the offensive: a global probe found more than 200 lawsuits since 2010 aimed at blocking or delaying public‑health measures – three‑quarters filed by ultra‑processed food makers or their trade groups, with eight corporate parents behind 38% of identifiable cases.
- Meanwhile diets are worsening as hunger deepens: Africa is now the world’s most food‑insecure region (309 million hungry) even as ultra‑processed products dominate shelves – 87% of packaged items analysed in South Africa were classed as unhealthy.
- Policy battlegrounds include sugar taxes, warning labels and marketing curbs – measures proven to cut consumption and raise revenue are routinely watered down or litigated against with job‑loss scare tactics, despite evidence those claims often don’t hold up.
- Health advocates say governments must act: finalise front‑of‑pack rules, raise taxes to WHO‑recommended levels, consider expanding levies to ultra‑processed foods and channel revenue to protect the most vulnerable – otherwise profit will keep shaping the food system, not public health. Read the full investigation.

## Content

It takes 1.7 litres of water to manufacture one [litre of soft drink product by Coca-Cola Beverages South Africa](https://www.ccbsaco.com/soft-drink-bottlers-water-savings-hit-sweet-spot/).

When considering the whole production lifecycle, the amount of water is actually much higher ([168-309 litres/half-litre of sugar-sweetened beverage](https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1003412)) than Coca-Cola’s estimates, said Dr Tamryn Frank, a nutrition researcher at the University of the Western Cape’s School of Public Health, to Daily Maverick.

In 2025, [The Lancet journal](https://www.thelancet.com/series-do/ultra-processed-food) said that diets high in ultra-processed foods (like polony, instant noodles, packaged bread and sodas) are linked to overeating, poor nutritional quality and higher exposure to harmful chemicals and additives.

A total of [87% of the packaged products analysed in SA](https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article/2026-03-10-reality-bites-sa-retail-giants-fall-short-on-access-to-healthy-food-report/)are classified as unhealthy when combining ultra-processed food markers and food that is high in fat, salt and sugar.

### **Taking aim at health policies**

In a recent global investigation by The Guardian, [Lighthouse Reports](https://www.lighthousereports.com/), media partners and academics across four continents found that more than [200 lawsuits have been brought](https://www.theguardian.com/society/2026/jul/22/processed-food-firms-courts-obstruct-health-regulations)against governments who implemented health policies to fight high levels of unhealthy food consumption, in Mexico, Colombia, Brazil, the United States and the United Kingdom, since 2010.

It is not always clear who is behind every lawsuit – but three-quarters were filed by ultra-processed food manufacturers or trade associations representing them. Of the identifiable plaintiffs, 38% were brought by eight parent corporations: [Coca-Cola](https://www.theguardian.com/business/cocacola), PepsiCo, Mondelēz, Kellogg’s, Danone, Ferrero, Xignux and Heartland Food Products Group.

Three-quarters of resolved cases were lost by food giants. But, they took up immense time in court – almost 600 years in total.

![Kellogg’s cereal stacked on shelves for sale at a store in Los Angeles, California, US. (Photo: EPA / Allison Dinner)](https://cdn.dailymaverick.co.za/i/Ei4rH19aalhS63FB4OQD-BCjMME=/200x100/smart/filters:strip_exif\(\)/file/attachments/2995/13186215_967602.jpg)

*Kellogg’s cereal stacked on shelves for sale at a store in Los Angeles, California, US. (Photo: EPA / Allison Dinner)*

### Sticky business of watered-down policies

The investigation found that out of 40 European countries, only 13 had a dedicated sugar tax in place. Other countries had [postponed, repealed or watered down similar measures](https://www.ftm.eu/articles/industry-lobby-sugar-taxes-postponed-cancelled)after political debate and industry opposition, they said.

Companies combine threats of litigation with warnings about job losses, declining investment and economic issues. They analysed dozens of lobbying letters sent to the governments, which then shaped political debate.

This is similar to SA, where the Health Promotion Levy taxing sugar-sweetened beverages has come under fire repeatedly for the claimed 16,000 jobs lost by the tax. Research into the job losses [disputes this](https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-4291451/v1).

Also a new report by the [Food and Agriculture Organisation](https://www.fao.org/hunger/en) said Africa had overtaken Asia as the region with the highest food insecurity, with 309 million of the 645 million hungry people worldwide.

How then is the high level of unhealthy food produced justified, when millions of people do not have a sufficient, safe and nutritious diet to carry out their daily lives, Daily Maverick asked Frank.

“Quite, simply, we can’t. There is no feasible justification for this. The ultra-processed food industry should not have free rein to determine the composition of the food system, as they do not have the health of the population at heart in their decision-making,” said Frank.

“Government needs to act, by implementing better policies and social protection measures to protect the health of the population against the profit-driven ultra-processed food industry.”

In July 2025 the World Health Organization (WHO) launched the “3 by 35” initiative, a global effort to increase the real prices of [tobacco, alcohol, and sugary drinks by at least 50%](https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240118942)by 2035 through tax increases.

Tendai Mafuma, Senior Legal Researcher at Section27, explained to Daily Maverick that sugar-sweetened beverages have little or no nutritional value but contribute to poor health outcomes such as diabetes and obesity, which cost the country through treatment and loss of productivity. Increasing the tax to WHO-recommended levels would “not only contribute to positive health outcomes, but would also generate much higher revenue for the state”.

Despite pushback from business, taxes on unhealthy beverages and food are [becoming more of a norm](https://www.globalfoodresearchprogram.org/resource/taxes-on-unhealthy-foods-and-beverages/), with more than 100 countries having some kind of tax.

Drinking [one or two sugar-sweetened beverages](http://nutritionweek.co.za/NNW2017/statistics) a day raises the risk of type 2 diabetes by up to 29%, and a child being overweight by 55%.

In SA, there are over [2.3-million people diagnosed with diabetes.](https://idf.org/our-network/regions-and-members/africa/members/south-africa/) According to the UN children’s fund ([Unicef](https://www.unicef.org/southafrica/press-releases/obesity-exceeds-underweight-first-time-among-school-age-children-and-adolescents)), about 23% of children under five and 21% of older children and adolescents are classified as overweight or obese.

### What about Africa?

“[Draft regulation 3337](https://ascfoodsafety.com/regulations-r3337-what-you-need-to-know/) proposed the introduction of front-of-pack warning labels on foods that are high in salt, sugar, or unhealthy fats as well as marketing restrictions towards children. If adopted, these regulations will help protect children. The government should move swiftly to finalise the regulation,” said Mafuma.

One of the first hurdles overcome with the draft regulation 3337 was the “delaying tactics” of industry, through 5,000 public comments, outlined Rebone Ntsie, Chief Director for Nutrition, Health Promotion and Oral Health at the Department of Health, speaking at the second leg of the [South African Human Rights Commission’s hearings into hunger](https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article/2026-07-12-sahrc-food-inquiry-some-ministers-engage-most-retailers-evade/), on 9 July. It took the national Department of Health more than a year to consider each comment – one of which was over 500 pages, she said.

In a [study reviewing sugary drinks taxes in Africa](https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/18/2/1128) from 2014 to 2024, researchers looked at whether taxes affected the amount drank, whether drinks were reformulated, and if the public accepted the tax.

It increased revenue in some countries, like SA, and there was an uptick in low- or zero-sugar options consumed by South Africans.

Ghana is imposing an excise duty of 20% on sweetened beverages, a front-of-pack nutrition labelling policy, and restrictions on the direct marketing of unhealthy beverages to children.

In Mauritius they found that more expensive drinks had a positive influence on youth consumption.

Kenya, Zambia, Rwanda and Tanzania have some form of sugar taxes – which appeared to be motivated by revenue generation rather than health promotion.

Zambia’s sugary drinks tax rate of 15% is anticipated to reduce the obesity prevalence by 0.49% points as a result of the tax. Also, the restrictions on sugary drinks in school environments and public awareness can reduce obesity in the long term.

They suggest governments worldwide should force manufactures to reduce container size, impose a complete ban on marketing, and “policymakers and sugar tax advocates should demonstrate that the introduction of a sugar tax is not an economic sanction on the manufacturers or an attack on the low-income group, but a means to promote public health”.

For a sugary drinks tax to be sustainable, it should tax all sugar-sweetened beverages to stop people from switching to untaxed versions. Reviewing the tax rate and design is necessary to ensure it is working, [they conclude](https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/18/2/1128).

“My suggestion would be to increase taxes to a level that they are effective (and consider expanding to include ultra-processed foods – as Colombia has done), but at the same time use the revenue raised to support the food security of the most vulnerable in the population,” said Frank. **DM**