San Francisco’s Misdirected Lawsuit: Fix SNAP Instead

San Francisco’s lawsuit against ten major food manufacturers, filed December 2, 2025, exemplifies the liberal appetite for big-government solutions that punish private enterprise while ignoring the real culprits in America’s public health crisis.

This legal action is yet another example of California and its progressive stronghold, San Francisco, failing to act decisively and sooner against the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), which has long subsidized the very ultra-processed foods (UPFs) now blamed for widespread obesity, diabetes, and heart disease. Instead of wielding the hammer of litigation against national companies like Coca-Cola and Kraft Heinz, true bold leadership demands reforming SNAP to restrict junk food purchases. But no, in filing this suit, San Francisco’s City Attorney David Chiu seeks the limelight in other ways.

Restricting SNAP benefits approach promotes personal responsibility, curbs taxpayer-funded poor choices, and challenges the UPF status quo without stifling free markets. It forces a reckoning with the fact that many SNAP and low-income vulnerable individuals in San Francisco are immigrants who rely on government handouts, uncomfortably raising questions about how many of such individuals are potentially undocumented/illegal aliens exploiting the system through fraud. The City of San Francisco refuses to require immigration status disclosure in any programs. The feds are already onto this and are working to bar SNAP handouts to those unlawfully here.

For decades, leaders have warned that expansive welfare programs like SNAP foster dependency and enable unhealthy behaviors, yet California has dragged its feet on meaningful reforms. SNAP, serving over 42 million Americans including 5.5 million in the Golden State and 112,000 in San Francisco (approx 15% of the population), allows benefits to cover sodas, candies, chips, and other UPFs that make up more than 50 percent of the average diet. In San Francisco alone, where poverty and food insecurity affect south-eastern neighborhoods like Bayview-Hunters Point, SNAP users consume higher levels of these addictive products, contributing to $85 million in annual diabetes-related health care costs.

Why did San Francisco and California not push for SNAP restrictions years ago? The answer lies in progressive rhetoric, which prioritizes “dignity” and “choice” over accountability, fearing that limits might stigmatize recipients, including vulnerable Black and Latino communities.

California’s inaction is particularly galling given its self-proclaimed leadership on health issues. The state banned certain food dyes and will now phase out UPFs in schools ( but only by 2035), yet it has not sought a federal waiver to restrict SNAP purchases, unlike twelve conservative-leaning states such as Texas and Florida that implemented bans on sodas and candies starting in 2026. Under the Trump administration’s “Make America Healthy Again” initiative, led by HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., these reforms redirect benefits toward nutritious foods, proving that restrictions can improve health without cutting access.

Limiting UPFs in SNAP could reduce risks population-wide, saving lives and billions in healthcare costs in time. But in California, progressive stakeholders ironically decry such measures, preferring to maintain the status quo that keeps people hooked on government aid and junk food.

This is not compassion; it is enabling. Welfare should be a helping hand, not a handout that funds self-destructive habits.

The lawsuit’s focus on penalizing manufacturers reveals a deeper flaw in liberal governance: an aversion to holding individuals (consumers) accountable while eagerly expanding state power over businesses. Suing companies for “deceptive marketing” and seeking damages reeks of sleazy trial-lawyer opportunism, potentially driving up costs for all consumers and stifling innovation in the long run.

National manufacturers operate in a free market, responding to demand; if SNAP did not bankroll UPFs, demand could shift naturally toward healthier options. Bold conservative leadership, by contrast, tackles the root cause through welfare reform.

Restricting SNAP to whole, natural foods, produce, and minimally processed items empowers recipients to make better choices, fosters self-reliance, and reduces the welfare state’s bloat. This aligns with basic principles of limited government and fiscal responsibility, as seen in recent Republican proposals to link benefits to work requirements and nutrition standards.

Imagine if San Francisco had led the charge a decade ago, partnering with reformers to pilot SNAP restrictions. Low-income families, including immigrant households, might enjoy better health outcomes, taxpayers would save on Medicaid burdens, and UPF sales would decline without courtroom drama. Instead, City Attorney David Chiu’s suit draws parallels to tobacco litigation, but ignores that Big Tobacco faced regulation, not just lawsuits; SNAP needs similar guardrails.

California’s resistance stems from ideological blinders, where suing corporations feels virtuous but reforming welfare threatens the entitlement mindset.