A lawsuit in the United States is taking aim at some of the biggest ultra-processed food companies, arguing their products are making people sick.
Whether the case succeeds, it signals a turning point: the question is no longer just what we eat, but how marketing systems shape what we eat — and who is responsible for the consequences.
Even without similar litigation, New Zealand may face growing pressure to strengthen regulation of food marketing as global scrutiny of these practices intensifies.
The lawsuit makes a striking claim — but perhaps not a surprising one. The links between these foods and chronic disease are well established.
Although the case focuses on food, the real issue is much bigger.
Ultra-processed foods are not the only products that cause harm — and they are not the only ones heavily marketed.
Alcohol, gambling, and other "unhealthy commodities" are all linked to addiction, disease and social harm. Yet they share something else in common: sophisticated, well-funded marketing systems designed to increase their consumption.
Despite mounting evidence of harm, marketing continues to play a central role in promoting products that fuel addiction, chronic disease and inequality.
This is where the conversation needs to shift — from products to marketing.
Marketing is often presented as neutral: a tool that helps consumers find products and helps businesses grow, but this view ignores something fundamental. Marketing does not simply respond to demand — it actively shapes it.
It influences what we want, what we value, and what we see as normal. It turns products into lifestyles, habits, and identities. And when applied to harmful products, it plays a direct role in increasing their use.
Decades of research show that marketing exposure increases consumption. Harmful product industries invest billions each year in marketing precisely because it works.
Exposure to tobacco marketing increases the rate of smoking initiation. Alcohol marketing increases hazardous drinking. Food marketing drives over-consumption of high-sugar, high-fat, ultra-processed products, especially among children.
These effects are the result of carefully designed strategies that combine psychology, data, and technology to influence behaviour at scale.
A 2025 paper by Erik Westling and colleagues describes "harmful marketing" as an overlooked social determinant of health, estimating that industries including tobacco, alcohol and processed food contribute to more than a million deaths annually in the US alone.
The American Marketing Association defines marketing as an activity that should create value not just for customers and organisations, but for "society at large".
This definition sets a clear expectation. Marketing is not just about profit — it is about contributing to societal wellbeing. Yet the continued promotion of harmful products sits uneasily with that claim.
From a public health perspective, the evidence is overwhelming. Non-communicable diseases — including heart disease, cancer and diabetes — are the leading causes of death globally. Many are driven by consumption patterns linked to alcohol and unhealthy food.
But these patterns do not emerge in a vacuum. They are shaped by environments in which harmful products are highly visible, widely available, heavily promoted, and often cheaper and more convenient than healthier alternatives.
Marketing plays a central role in creating those environments. It normalises consumption. It embeds products into everyday life. It associates them with pleasure, success, relaxation, and social connection.
And, increasingly, it uses digital platforms to target individuals with precision — often exploiting behavioural vulnerabilities and reinforcing habits.
In this context, the idea of consumer choice becomes more complicated.
Consumers do make choices, but those choices are shaped — and often constrained — by powerful commercial systems. When marketing consistently nudges behaviour in one direction, it is difficult to argue that outcomes are purely the result of individual responsibility.
This is particularly concerning for vulnerable groups. Children and young people are exposed to high levels of marketing for harmful products, often before they have the cognitive ability to critically evaluate persuasive intent.
Lower-income communities are disproportionately targeted and affected, compounding existing health inequalities.
These are not isolated problems. They reflect a broader system in which commercial success is often tied to increased consumption — even when that consumption leads to harm.
Our recent research argues that once harm is well established, continuing to market these products while claiming to serve society becomes increasingly difficult to defend. Previous Otago research shows that children aged 11-12 in New Zealand are exposed to unhealthy marketing on average 76.2 times per day.
This is not simply a matter of individual firms behaving badly. It is a systemic issue — one that reflects how markets are structured, how success is measured, and how marketing is practised.
The lawsuit against ultra-processed food companies may be one attempt to address this contradiction, but legal action alone is unlikely to resolve a problem of this scale.
What is needed internationally is a broader rethink of marketing’s role in society.
For policymakers, this means recognising marketing as a driver of consumption, and therefore a legitimate focus of regulation. Restrictions on advertising, particularly to children, clearer labelling, and policies that reflect the true social costs of harmful products are all part of the solution.
For businesses, it means moving beyond surface-level commitments to responsibility and examining whether their core strategies align with long-term societal wellbeing. Promoting "responsible consumption" while continuing to drive demand for harmful products is not a sustainable position.
Divestment from harmful product categories is not only an ethical necessity but increasingly a strategic one, as regulators, investors and consumers demand responsibility and accountability from business.
And for marketing itself, it means confronting a difficult question: are all forms of demand creation equally legitimate?
Because marketing is not just a business function. It is a powerful social institution. It shapes behaviours, norms, and systems. With that influence comes responsibility.
The lawsuit may focus on food, but the implications are much wider.
If we accept that multiple industries profit from products that harm health — and that marketing plays a central role in sustaining their consumption — then the issue is no longer whether there is a problem.
It is whether we are willing to confront it. — Newsroom
• Prof Robert Aitken teaches advertising, branding, communications and media-related marketing issues at the University of Otago; associate prof Leah Watkins is director for masters’ programmes in the Department of Marketing, University of Otago.
