Lawyers are considering bringing a class action against major food companies, in what would be an unprecedented legal challenge to the UK food and drink sector.
The Grocer has learned that lawyers from firm Leigh Day have been exploring the potential grounds on which legal cases could be brought against companies from a variety of sectors, which include food manufacturers, alcohol suppliers and vape producers.
While the process is understood to be at an early, exploratory stage, lawyers from the firm have met with think tanks and policy experts to discuss whether any potential class actions could be brought against major manufacturers.
The gambling sector is also understood to be in Leigh Day’s spotlight, with lawyers discussing whether there is a commonality in the marketing tactics deployed by companies across the different sectors and whether this harms customers. They’ve also discussed if the law should be strengthened to better protect consumers.
One potential area being considered is the notion that companies knowingly deploy techniques, including neuroscience, to make their products addictive in order to increase consumption.
Sources with knowledge of one meeting have highlighted concerns about the marketing techniques used by major food producers to promote so-called UPF products, and how similar they are to those used by ‘big tobacco’ and the gambling sector.
A spokesman for Leigh Day has insisted that there are no concrete plans for any legal action at this stage.
UPFs face legal challenges in the US
It comes as scrutiny over the notion of UPFs grows globally, following two high-profile cases in the US.
In December, law firm Morgan & Morgan brought a lawsuit against a raft of companies including Mondelez, Kraft Heinz, Coca-Cola, Nestlé and Kellanova, accusing them of intentionally developing addictive UPFs, which are overwhelmingly marketed at children. It had led to an “explosion” of chronic health conditions like diabetes, obesity and heart disease among consumers, the lawsuit claims.
The plaintiff, Bryce Martinez, developed type 2 diabetes and fatty liver disease by the age of 16, which he claims is a direct result of consuming the company’s products.
Separately, Hilliard Law is calling for potential plaintiffs who believe they or their children have suffered health problems linked “directly to the consumption of ultra-processed foods”, ahead of potential legal action against the FDA.
Rather than targeting companies, Hilliard’s case is centred on the ‘GRAS designation’, which enables companies to self-declare novel additives as being safe to eat, without needing FDA approval. The firm claims the FDA has harmed US consumers by failing to adequately regulate or research UPFs.
Food lawyers have questioned whether similar action would be successful in the UK, due to the different nature of the two regulatory systems.
“Claims broadly work on the duty owed to a party by another party,” one lawyer said, adding that any potential class action would need to prove that manufacturers had a “duty” over their customers.
To bring a claim, lawyers would likely need to present “objective evidence that companies had acted illegally”, which would be difficult in the UK where new food and drink products have to be legally approved before they can be sold.
They highlighted the fact that similar class actions brought against major tobacco manufacturers over the past decade have been unsuccessful.
The FDF declined to comment when approached by The Grocer.
No comments yet