> many of them were against the country’s labelling regulation. Quinto Elemento Lab reveals the companies’ arguments: that the laws were a violation of their constitutional rights
But the article doesn't say what those rights are, which makes me think the lawsuits were just
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xbFQc2kxm9c
FYI
obesity 1977 ~14% 2026 40%+
T2 Diabetes 1977 ~3% 2026 ~12%
Or maybe, to paraphrase the famous tweet, this is actually a plucky band of Mexican fizzy drinks manufacturers who are determined to expose the lies of 97% of the worlds health scientists.
The cereal boxes in the stores don't have cute cartoon characters on them, and I tried to send somebody a box of chocolates and it got seized by customs.
Candy is labeled like cigarettes.
In this case, lighthouse reports is an international NGO which receives on the order of ~1MM in income per year (an extremely common pattern for these NGOs), which was directly given to them by (unspecified) government grants and (unnamed) private donors (can see all this in their openly published annual reports). In exchange for the funding (80.38% of which they paid out to themselves as wages/compensation), they put together and release "reports", "studies", etc., that push the messaging the NGO was created to push.
I realize “just” is very subjective, but I think that mandatory “excessive sugar” markers is a proportional response to the obesity and diabetes epidemic. Ultimately society has to bear the externalities of this stuff. And I think advertising any products to kids is a bit of a moral hazard.
I don't see it:
Class-action suits require the law firm owners (partners) to pay teams of attorneys, as well as experts, and others for years. I saw one firm rent an office and hire dozens of attorneys just to review the tens of millions of pages of documents, looking for evidence. The firm earns nothing unless and until a positive resolution. Some firms require financing to cover the cost.
Who is going to put all that on the line - not to mention their career and reputation - for a dubious case?
When the resolution comes - usually a settlement - they might not profit or not much for their years of investment and effort. If they pursue a 'dubious' case, they could lose everything - courts can even sanction them.
Targets of class action suits don't like them, of course, and try to denigrate the attorneys. What else will deter and get justice for some of the brazen fraud? The SEC? FTC? They don't have the resources or, depending on the administration, the mandate to enforce things across the entire country. Will you sue a corporation for even $10K? Try it.
It was: "I would only argue that senators don't have the luxury that a research scientist does awaiting until every last shred of evidence is in"
Now they reject the experts. Either to a please their voter base or for personal profit. Big grocery has more money for political donations / legal bribery.
USA Supreme Court conservative judges have ruled that expertise has no value in a ruling against protecting the environment from toxic chemicals.
We were, but it has devolved into crony capitalism. I don't think it's too late to revert, but I do doubt we'll ever get our shit together and fix it.
What free trade enables is for monopolistic corporations to take control of foreign resources to circumvent and undermine US labor laws. They'll buy the rights to the same crops growing in Mexico or Candida for cheaper than the US to undercut US farmers. None of that changes the price they are selling goods in the US and in fact ultimately results in prices going up in both Mexico and Candida.
There is a reason those Italians live so long. Their McDonalds is better than others. It is literally illegal to sell McDonalds foods the way Americans make it.
My assumption that the suits were just was because the article obviously wants you to come away with a very specific conclusion, for example there is a sibling comment that seems to think these cases are about US companies. When reading clearly biased but polished, sources my default is to assume any facts they prominently leave out they did so on purpose.
I ask, humbly, that people please not do this. Nothing good has ever come of it.
But if you are suggesting that this NGO is carrying water for some unspecified shadowy group that is pulling the strings, you'll need to provide some backing for that. Who has a nefarious motivation to oppose junk food?
Trial lawyers? Misguided do-gooders? Big Celery?
> international NGO
What does 'international' mean here and why do you mention it? About page: "nonprofit organisation registered in the Netherlands with ANBI (Public Benefit Organisation) status"
> ~1MM in income per year
They have a staff of over 30. They must spend much more than $1 million/year.
> In exchange for the funding (80.38% of which they paid out to themselves as wages/compensation)
They list their top salaries on the About page, which ain't much: "The salaries of our five highest paid employees range from €69,000 to €108,000 per year." Fifth highest paid employee makes €69,000.
> directly given to them by (unspecified) government grants and (unnamed) private donors
The About page lists funders by name, as well as "Media partners".
> In exchange for the funding ... they put together and release "reports", "studies", etc., that push the messaging the NGO was created to push.
Could you provide a source for that? Here's what the About page says:
"Editorial Independence is essential to all aspects of the work we do. We work with donors who do not impose conditions that restrict our journalism."
And from another page:
"We offer a collaborative space where hyper-local outlets and freelance journalists can work alongside staff from globally-recognised media. We exist to foster experiments with new formats and we pay particular attention to fresh ways of framing complex issues that will capture public attention and challenge misconceptions."
https://www.lighthousereports.com/what-we-stand-for/
EDIT: How can people on HN care that much about the source, Lighthouse? Right now three users, not including the parent commenter, are motivated enough to promote the disinformation about Lighthouse that they downvoted a mostly factual, informative comment. (I don't care about the votes; they are just evidence.) Maybe there is something I don't know about Lighthouse?
Money begets money (and power). It doesn't require an economics degree to understand this positive feedback loop.
An economist....
You should see what they do in the UK. Looks tasty, but healthy it certainly is not.
They aren’t high end chefs. They are normal workers that aren’t squeezed by their company to produce food in the cheapest way
I would personally categorize it as as subsidized not paid for since the lawyers get nothing if they fail which is a meaningful cost.
None of this is to say I support the current system. Class action lawsuits are now designed to get settlements that save the company targeted millions or more compared to the actual damage agreed to.
And giving the lawyers millions when each litigant is lucky to get $20 is not reasonable.
Not saying they are specifically doing that, but I can’t confidently say they aren’t either
I do not know who is pushing but if you think there is not an entire industry of "healthy" alternatives for the companies in the article, you are very much mistaken.
Hell it might be the artificial sweetener industry, in the UK it's now practically impossible to buy a soda that is not full of artificial sweeteners, excluding regular coca cola, and regular red bull.
This week half the photocopiers are in foster care (prison).
Next week, half the backup generators.
- “paid for by tax payers who fund the court systems”. The alternative would mean taking away the right of private citizens to sue.
On social media, making dubious claims about food science or food ingredients, then following up by selling some "clean, unprocessed, organic" product is big business. (I make no claims about this specific NGO).
If it were true that free trade results in more competition, then you'd expect that there would be more companies competing, not fewer. We see fewer companies.
Your theory has been tested in reality and it fails.
1. I personally enjoy a can of hogwater every day and am happy to give you a referral code.
2. Except those who financially benefit from hawking snake oil, of course.
More importantly, the raw number of corporations isn't how you measure a monopoly. Profit margins are the key sign of monopoly pricing- but in practice, corporate profit margins have been relatively stable in percentage terms over time. Prices for virtually all consumer goods are way down in real terms over the last 30 years.
In particular, trade might get you more competition with fewer corporations, but via competition with overseas producers. These might show up as a few importing corporations, representing a whole slew of competitors abroad.
The alternative would not be to take away the right of private citizens to sue. There is, surprisingly enough, quite a chasm between identifying that some parties are taking advantage of a system and completely shutting that system down.
> "There is, surprisingly enough, quite a chasm between identifying that some parties are taking advantage of a system and completely shutting that system down."
Bad diets kill millions of people globally every year, and lead to tens of billions of dollars in health costs, often placing the heaviest burden on communities who are least able to afford it. Children, with limited decision-making power, are particularly vulnerable to this.
Legislators and government officials have worked to rein in this public health crisis by enacting laws that require food companies to be transparent about their ingredients and limit the advertising of unhealthy foods.
In public, the world’s biggest and richest food companies such as Coca Cola, PepsiCola, and Mondelez say they want to be part of the solution. But behind closed doors, they have taken governments to court to delay, dilute, and derail public health laws, which the companies say violate their rights.
This cross border collaboration with health academics and an international media coalition shed light on how transnational corporations use legal tactics – lawsuits and legal threats – to stymie public health efforts in six countries where such tactics are most apparent: Mexico, Brazil, Colombia, India, Britain, and the United States.

Credit: Revisual Labs for Lighthouse Reports
We found:
– 239 lawsuits were filed between 2010 and 2025 across Mexico, Colombia, Brazil, the US, the UK, and India against public health policies targeting food and beverages such as front of pack labelling, regulating advertising junk food to children, soda taxes, and taxes on ultra processed foods.
– The cases add up to 595 years of litigation, representing a significant burden on the governments defending their health policies.
– Of the cases brought by private companies where the plaintiff was identifiable, more than 1 in 3 came from just nine parent groups, led by Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, and Mondelez
Their actions are not only prolonging the public health crisis but also cost countries billions of dollars in both legal and healthcare costs. In addition, they have a chilling effect on policymakers that wish to better their citizens’ health but do not have the resources to engage in drawn-out legal fights with food companies.

Credit: Revisual Labs for Lighthouse Reports
We constructed a dataset of challenges to laws aiming to improve population nutrition between 2010 and 2025 in these countries: Mexico, Colombia, Brazil, U.S., UK, and India.
With the exception of India, cases were included when a regulation that sought to improve public health through better nutrition was being challenged (i.e. validity, scope, or implementation). We made an exception for cases in India where influencers were being sued, as they were taking over the role of the government in making the nutritional value of products more transparent.
We only included cases that were verifiable through official legal databases, court records, or reputable secondary sources.

Credit: Revisual Labs for Lighthouse Reports
We excluded cases solely concerning non-manufacturers such as fresh produce or when companies were appealing fines and other judgments unrelated to public health policies.
This research was done in collaboration with researchers from the University of Caldas (Colombia); Robert & Ethel Kennedy Human Rights Center (United States); the University of Sao Paulo (Brazil); and the University of Sydney (Australia). They found more lawsuits through a systematic legal search in Colombia, Brazil and Mexico.
An upcoming academic paper will be published alongside the media articles, looking at the dataset from a scientific perspective.
This dataset built on the work and insight of El Poder del Consumidor (Mexico), the FULL database developed by the Global Center for Legal Innovation on Food Environments at the O’Neill Institute and the Global Health Advocacy Incubator, CAJAR (Colombia), and ACT (Brazil).
More than a third of Mexican schoolchildren and 41% of adolescents were overweight according to a 2022 national survey.
This is the country where we found the most lawsuits (193 out of 239), many of them were against the country’s labelling regulation. Quinto Elemento Lab reveals the companies’ arguments: that the laws were a violation of their constitutional rights and that the measures “demonized” their products or violated consumer rights. For example, a local Pepsi bottler argued that in certain rural areas of Mexico, it was safer to drink soft drinks than the available water. In court, the judges rejected many of the legal arguments that the companies presented.

Credit: Revisual Labs for Lighthouse Reports
According to the UN, in 2022-2024, more than 1 in 4 adults in Brazil were living with obesity while nearly 1 in 9 children were overweight.
Some of the 17 lawsuits in Brazil have been dragging on for close to a couple of decades, with no predicted conclusion in sight, according to Agência Pública and O Joio e O Trigo.
In all but one, the plaintiffs were industry associations, which experts told us is a way for companies to keep their valuable brand names away from litigation that may harm their image. Some of the world’s largest food companies are members of these Brazilian associations, including Coca-Cola, Ferrero, Kellogg’s local brand, Mars, Mondelez, Nestlé, and PepsiCo. 11 of the lawsuits were against the Brazilian Health Regulatory Agency, ANVISA, which has been hamstrung as a result. The plaintiffs disputed a regulation that required the advertising of food and beverages with low nutritional value to display more information.
More than half of Colombia’s population is overweight, and treating the diseases caused by unhealthy foods cost the country an estimated 1.3 billion euros in 2021.
We found 18 lawsuits in Colombia, mostly targeting taxes on unhealthy products and front-of-package labelling. Nearly all of them were constitutional challenges brought about by individual citizens as enabled in the country’s constitution. However, Cuestión Pública finds that many of the plaintiffs were lawyers who had done work for food companies. The submissions also used many of the same arguments wielded by the companies. In 2022, while the creation of the health tax was being debated, sugary beverage and ultra-processed food companies donated 5.85 million Euros to political parties, accounting for 40% of all donations to political parties that year.
Two in three adults in the U.S. are overweight and a quarter of adolescents are living with obesity, according to the CDC. The Make America Healthy Again movement supported Trump’s presidency bid.
The American Beverage Association sued to overturn a soda tax in Santa Cruz, which it has so far failed to do. Santa Cruz Local uncovers details of the group’s earlier success squashing a soda tax effort in Watsonville, a neighbouring city. The Santa Cruz lawsuit has far-reaching consequences: the recent victory for the city could unlock the ability for charter cities across California to tax sugary beverages. We found that the soda industry recruited and leveraged the credibility of prominent Black and Latino leaders to amplify opposition against public health taxes within their own communities. We have also identified five other lawsuits. The ABA was involved in four of them.

Credit: Revisual Labs for Lighthouse Reports
In Europe, non-communicable diseases (NCDs) such as cardiovascular diseases, diabetes, or cancer are responsible for 80% of the disease burden, according to the European Commission.
Follow The Money discovers that European countries have struggled to pass taxes on sugar-sweetened beverages, as they come under industry pressure. Unlike in Latin America, European governments frequently face legal threats before legislation is adopted. Industry groups repeatedly invoke EU state-aid, competition and internal-market rules, creating uncertainty that can delay or derail policies without a single lawsuit being filed. Plans for a joint European sugar tax have also been weakened.
L’Espresso and Il Fatto Alimentare explain the role Italian confectionary giant Ferrero plays around the world in stimying public health laws, and how the family-owned company’s influence both domestically and internationally is connected to the country’s agroindustry rather than its famous cuisine.
As of 2024, 66% of adults and 26% of children in England were either overweight or living with obesity, according to the National Health Service.
In 2021, a year before Kellogg’s sued – and lost – against the country’s nutrient profiling model contained in the Food (Promotion and Placement) (England) Regulations 2021, it sent a pre-action letter to the Department of Health and Social Care, claiming the health rating of its cereals should be measured with the milk it is usually consumed with.
A mere two weeks before the ruling against Kellogg’s, Ferrero and Eat Natural, a subsidiary of Ferrero, also sent pre-action letters over the same regulations.
Nearly one in three Indian women and more than one in four men are overweight or obese. One in five people have high blood sugar levels.
The Wire traces the long journey of India’s front of pack labeling regulation, which the Indian food regulator, the FSSAI, has been developing since 2014. Over that time, it has done numerous consultations, studies but it has stalled regulating, blaming a lack of consensus between the industry and civil society. Research by ATNi commissioned by Lighthouse Reports showed that India’s proposed labelling system is actually consistently more lenient compared to similar systems in Australia and France.
Meanwhile, influential instagram celebrities have made videos comparing the nutrition of various products such as instant noodles, baby food, and others. They’ve been sued by the companies whose ingredient labels they were analysing.