They Took Our Loved Ones From Us — Hold the Food Industry Accountable

The grief of losing someone to a preventable, obesity‑related death is a wound that never fully heals. It's not just the empty chair at the table or the missed birthdays; it's the nights spent replaying the last conversation, the medical bills, the hollow ache of unanswered questions. Families deserve more than sympathy. They deserve accountability. When corporations design environments that systematically push people toward overconsumption, those corporations must answer for the harm they help create.

Obesity is not a private failing; it is a global emergency. More than 2.4 billion people worldwide are overweight or obese. That staggering number cannot be explained away by weakness or laziness. When entire populations are steered toward excess by engineered store layouts, targeted digital nudges, and sensory tricks designed to short‑circuit self‑control, we are looking at a structural problem with corporate fingerprints all over it.

That is why I urge grieving families to consider civil suits against food retailers and manufacturers that deploy aggressive neuromarketing to drive overconsumption. This is not about blame for blame's sake. It is about justice for real people whose lives were shortened by a system that profits from engineered appetite. It is about forcing a public reckoning with practices that exploit human psychology for profit.

Legally, these cases are winnable in the sense that they can produce meaningful outcomes. Families should expect partial compensation rather than an all‑or‑nothing victory. Many jurisdictions recognize doctrines like comparative negligence or product liability that allow courts and juries to apportion fault. Even if a jury finds that a decedent made poor choices, it can also find that retailers and manufacturers materially contributed to the harm by designing environments that encourage binge buying and constant snacking. That shared finding of responsibility can translate into real damages for survivors — money that helps cover funeral costs, lost income, and the long, painful aftermath of losing a loved one.

But the stakes go far beyond dollars. The emotional suffering of families is profound and enduring. Imagine parents who outlive their child, partners who must navigate a future without the person who shared their life, children who grow up without a parent's guidance. These are not abstract statistics; they are human tragedies. When courts hear the stories of those left behind — the sleepless nights, the medical crises, the slow decline — juries and judges are capable of recognizing that corporate practices played a role in creating those tragedies.

If courts and juries begin to assign partial liability to the food industry, the ripple effects would be enormous and positive. Retailers would face legal, financial, and reputational pressure to curb manipulative neuromarketing. Store designs that prioritize impulse buys over healthy choices would be rethought. Warning labels, limits on targeted promotions, and transparent disclosures about marketing tactics could become the norm. Regulators would have stronger grounds to act. Public health campaigns would gain traction. Most importantly, the environments that now normalize excess would begin to shift toward supporting healthier decisions.

This is not about absolving individuals of responsibility. Personal choices matter. But responsibility is shared when corporations intentionally exploit cognitive vulnerabilities for profit. The sheer scale of the obesity crisis makes it impossible to accept a narrative that pins blame solely on individuals. People do not become overweight en masse because they lack willpower; they do so because the systems around them make overeating, convenient, and relentless.

Litigation is a blunt but effective tool for social change. Thoughtfully framed lawsuits can expose internal marketing strategies, bring expert testimony about behavioral manipulation into the public record, and create legal precedents that reshape industry behavior. They can also provide grieving families with a measure of justice and a platform to demand systemic reform.

To the families who have lost someone: your grief is real, and your loss matters. To advocates and public health professionals: this is a moment to support legal strategies that hold powerful actors accountable. And to the food industry: if your business model depends on engineering human weakness, be prepared to answer in court and in the court of public opinion.

We can mourn quietly, or we can demand change that prevents the next family from suffering the same fate. The choice is moral, urgent, and necessary.

Zoltán Bíró — Nope Haul Revolutionary | Debrecen, Hungary.