In the realm of addiction-related litigation, an emerging trend is taking shape that courts are finding challenging to navigate. While traditionally associated with drug and alcohol dependence, the term “addiction” has now expanded to encompass behaviors related to nicotine use, gambling, and increasingly, food. This shift in societal perspective presents a complex landscape for courts to manage, particularly as plaintiffs’ attorneys aggressively pursue claims for undiagnosed addictions, including those related to ultra-processed foods (UPFs).
Recent lawsuits target social media companies, video game developers, and food manufacturers. In a noteworthy case filed in December 2024, plaintiffs initiated action against eleven food makers, alleging that they produce ultra-processed food items purposely engineered to be addictive, drawing comparisons to the tactics of the tobacco industry in what has been framed as “Tobacco 2.0” (details here).
Central to these cases is the premise that UPFs are addictive due to their purported impact on the body’s reward system. The Yale Food Addiction Scale, borrowing criteria from substance use disorder diagnostics, is touted as a tool to identify such addictions. However, it’s crucial to note that it was not included in the current edition of the DSM-5, the authoritative manual for mental health disorders, complicating the landscape for legal claims based on alleged food addiction (more information).
Some researchers suggest rising obesity rates justify classifying UPFs as addictive, analogous to nicotine. They argue UPFs trigger cravings and compulsive behaviors, supported by studies involving dopamine release in rodents. Nonetheless, these assertions face scrutiny as normal pleasurable activities also activate similar neurological pathways, and the association between dopamine and addiction is not a straightforward one.
Further complicating matters, the Yale scale’s reliance on self-assessment introduces risks of bias and misdiagnosis. This is particularly concerning for populations with complex relationships with food, such as individuals with anorexia, who may inaccurately be diagnosed with food addiction (study access).
The question of whether UPFs or any food can be objectively diagnosed as addictive remains unresolved within the medical community. Courts face the challenge of weighing these unresolved medical questions against the desire to limit protracted and potentially premature litigation. As legal professionals observe the unfolding landscape, a cautious approach seems prudent while medical consensus is lacking. For those in law, staying informed about the evolving nature of such addiction-related claims will be essential in navigating and potentially defending against them effectively in the courtroom (full article).