Food Manufacturers Oppose Update for Lawsuit Over UPF and Diabetes, Fatty Liver Disease

Ultra-processed food manufacturers say an amended complaint alleging consumption of their products led to diabetes and fatty liver disease will not address deficiencies that led to its original dismissal.

Major manufacturers of ultra-processed foods are urging a federal judge to reject a Pennsylvania man’s bid to reinstate a lawsuit alleging their products caused him to develop childhood diabetes, fatty liver disease and other metabolic disorders.

Ultra-processed foods (UPFs) include a wide variety of popular products made with additives like artificial flavors, colors and preservatives, which now make up a large share of the average U.S. child’s diet. While these additives enhance flavor, texture and shelf life, they offer little nutritional value, and recent research suggests that frequent UPF consumption may sharply increase the risk of diabetes and other chronic diseases, especially in children.

In December 2024, Bryce Martinez filed a lawsuit alleging UPF caused his childhood diabetes, fatty liver disease and other injuries, indicating that Kraft Heinz, Coca-Cola, General Mills and other major manufacturers knowingly marketed their junk foods toward children, while concealing the long-term health risks linked to high levels of sugar, fat and chemical additives. 

Martinez claims that deceptive marketing and a lack of transparency led him to consume large amounts of these products as a child, leaving him with chronic and life-long injuries.

His lawsuit followed publication of a study in March 2024, which warned there was a strong link between consuming ultra-processed foods and an increased risk of type 2 diabetes, along with other side effects like sleep disturbances, breathing issues and depression. Another study published that same month showed a link between ultra-processed foods and major heart problems, including heart attacks and heart failure.

Following preliminary motions, U.S. District Judge Mia R. Perez of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania dismissed Martinez’s lawsuit in August 2025, finding the complaint lacked sufficient detail about specific UPFs that caused his injury. While the court noted that the defendants did not dispute that ultra-processed foods can contribute to chronic health conditions, Judge Perez ruled that Martinez’s pleadings were insufficient to establish liability for his injuries.

In late September, Martinez filed a motion seeking permission to amend and refile the ultra-processed food lawsuit, which asked the judge to reconsider her decision to dismiss, outlining additional details about the specific products consumed and quantities.

The food manufacturers filed an opposition to the plaintiff’s motion (PDF) last week, asking Judge Perez to reject Martinez’s request. They counter that the amended filing contains details on products consumed that predate the original complaint by more than three years, which the defendants say violates statute of limitation laws that put a time-limit on how long a plaintiff can wait to file a lawsuit after using or consuming a product that led to injuries.

In addition, the defendants also claim that the amendments would not answer the deficiencies in the original lawsuit, leaving too many gaps in the information about Martinez’s consumption of potentially dozens of products as a child.

The proposed amended lawsuit alleges Martinez consumed numerous items, many of them advertised as being fat-free, lite or zero sugar products, such as Boca Burger, Wheat Thins, Cheez-Its, Nature Valley Granola bars and Kraft House Italian Dressing.

Judge Perez’s decision on whether the approach to Martinez’s amended complaint is sufficient to reinstate the lawsuit could have a significant impact on future claims, including how they are structured.

Sign up for more legal news that could affect you or your family.