Research published by the reinsurance company Swiss Re in sigma insights 05/2026 examines the evolving legal exposure connected to ultra-processed foods (UPFs).
The analysis, written by Jonathan Anchen, Head of Market Intelligence at Swiss Re, and Vinitha Ajit, Research Analyst at Swiss Re, assesses how litigation strategies, scientific debates and public policy discussions may influence future liability risks for food manufacturers.
The analysts explain that ultra-processed foods represent a potential long-tail liability risk that could develop characteristics similar to other sectors where liability costs expanded over time. The report notes that litigation dynamics may also be affected by excess inflation, which can amplify the financial impact of claims as they evolve.
According to Swiss Re, a significant development occurred in December 2025 when the first lawsuit initiated by a government authority against manufacturers of ultra-processed foods was filed. Swiss Re says this case reflects a new direction in legal strategies being applied to the sector. Litigation approaches often shift as claims mature, particularly when the potential claimant population is large.
The analysts report that early claims primarily centred on individual injury allegations, where plaintiffs argued that consumption of specific products contributed to health conditions. More recent legal strategies have expanded to include public cost recovery actions. Swiss Re explains that these claims aim to recover healthcare or social costs linked to diet-related illnesses and often rely on legal theories such as unfair competition or public nuisance.
Swiss Re notes that this strategy may allow plaintiffs to avoid some of the evidentiary barriers associated with proving a direct causal relationship between a particular product and an individual health outcome. By framing claims around broader public costs or market practices, plaintiffs may attempt to bypass the scientific hurdles that typically arise in personal injury litigation.
Despite this shift, Swiss Re states that individual injury cases remain active and continue to form part of the legal landscape. Swiss Re explains that if a case progresses past preliminary motions and enters the discovery phase, internal corporate documents could become central evidence. Swiss Re observes that disclosure of such material has historically played a decisive role in other major liability disputes and may lead to substantial defence expenses or settlement pressure.
The analysts also note that a successful case could create momentum for further legal action. According to Swiss Re’s analysis, a favourable outcome for plaintiffs in one jurisdiction could encourage similar claims elsewhere, potentially resulting in follow-on lawsuits or comparable litigation strategies in multiple markets.
A key narrative advanced by plaintiffs concerns the formulation and consumption patterns associated with ultra-processed foods. Swiss Re explains that some claimants argue these products are engineered to be highly appealing, sometimes described as “hyperpalatable,” which may encourage increased consumption. According to Swiss Re, plaintiffs sometimes characterise this design as contributing to behaviour resembling addictive consumption patterns.
Swiss Re highlights that ultra-processed foods make up a substantial portion of dietary intake in several high-income economies. Data referenced by Swiss Re indicates that in countries such as the United States and the United Kingdom these products account for more than half of total energy consumption. Swiss Re further notes that in the United States children and adolescents aged one to eighteen receive approximately 61.9% of their calories from ultra-processed foods.
The analysts emphasise that legal claims involving ultra-processed foods face several scientific and definitional challenges. One difficulty identified by Swiss Re is the absence of a universally agreed definition of ultra-processed foods. This lack of consistency may complicate legal arguments, regulatory frameworks and scientific interpretation.
Swiss Re also explains that establishing direct causation between ultra-processed food consumption and specific health outcomes remains complex. The report notes that relatively few randomised controlled trials have examined the issue in depth. As a result, Swiss Re observes that plaintiffs frequently rely on observational research that identifies correlations between high intake of ultra-processed foods and adverse metabolic health indicators.
While observational studies do not provide the same level of causal evidence as controlled experiments, Swiss Re reports that the growing body of research has attracted increasing attention from governments, regulators and public health authorities. Swiss Re indicates that this rising policy interest could influence how courts and regulators assess the issue over time.
The analysts conclude that litigation strategies may continue to evolve as plaintiffs test different legal approaches. According to Swiss Re, if courts allow observational evidence to play a larger role in proceedings, some cases could progress further through the legal process.
Swiss Re suggests that the possibility of cases reaching juries or entering extensive discovery phases could create leverage for plaintiffs and increase financial exposure for companies involved in the production and marketing of ultra-processed foods.
