The following article appeared on November 25, 2025 on LAW.COM

A pivotal federal dismissal in Martinez v. Kraft Heinz spotlights the evidentiary challenges in ultra-processed food (UPF) lawsuits-especially in connecting specific product exposure to harm. As regulators and attorneys step up scrutiny, mass tort strategies are evolving, with insights from leading expert Dr. Marion Nestle.

The ‘Martinez’ Case: A Reality Check for Plaintiffs

In August 2025, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania dismissed Martinez v. Kraft Heinz (No. 2:24-cv-05871), a mass tort suit that targeted top food makers for allegedly addicting teens to ultra-processed foods (UPFs) and causing serious illness. Judge Mia R. Perez ruled the claims were “too vague”-plaintiffs listed over 100 brands, but didn’t demonstrate which products were consumed, when, or how much. The message: Mass tort plaintiffs must tie concrete evidence of product exposure to direct medical harm.

Science, Regulation and the Scope of UPEs

UPFs make up more than two-thirds of kids’ daily diets. Recent studies in BMJ (2024) and The Lancet (2025) link these foods to dozens of health risks, fueling government action like California’s 2025 executive order to investigate food additives and marketing practices.

Expert View: Dr. Marion Nestle, acclaimed author and professor of nutritition and public health, on legal headwinds.

Speaking on my “Cut to the Chase” podcast, Nestle-quoted recently in The New York Times-called attention to the litigation’s scientific and regulatory hurdles: “Until regulators define and disclose what constitutes an ultra-processed food, and science clarifies causation, lawsuits will face resistance. Still, the marketing to children, especially given mounting public health evidence, is becoming indefensible.”

Her insight underscores the need for attorneys to build tightly documented cases and engage credible expert witnesses to connect product exposure with health outcomes.

Evolving Legal Tactics

• Refine pleadings to show exactly which products caused harm-and how.
• Gather receipts, food diaries and medical records.
• Use recognized systems like NOVA to categorize UPFs.
• Retain expert nutrition scientists to bridge science and policy.

Tobacco Litigation: Playbook or Cautionary Tale?

Plaintiff lawyers cite historic tobacco cases for roadmap potential. Martinez referenced a 1999 Minneapolis meeting where food executives discussed-but did not act on-health risks.

Future mass tort success may hinge on “smoking gun” documents and deeper internal discovery.

Industry Pushback and Regulatory Trends

Manufacturers argue UPF definitions lack scientific clarity, challenging the basis of emerging lawsuits. Food companies are increasing focus on recipe changes and transparency, but litigation and regulatory pressure continue to build.

Practical Implications for Florida and Beyond

Florida attorneys and firms are already receiving inquiries from parents and advocates. Expect increased consumer claims, class actions, and state-level regulations in line with national trends.

Key Takeaways:

• Attorneys must deliver specific, well-documented pleadings.
• Demonstrate direct links between exposure and harm using credible data and experts.
• Stay ahead of changing regulatory rules and scientific consensus.
• Leverage strategic lessons from tobacco and other mass tort litigation.

Gregg Goldfarb is a Miami personal injury attorney, environmental advocate and host of “Cut to the Chase” podcast, where he interviews leaders like Dr. Marion Nestle. Contact him at gregg@goldfarblaw.com