Updated 1st July 2025
How Big Food maintains its stranglehold on the world’s health
Share this article
Did humans really land on the moon? Is NASA hiding the truth about the Earth being flat? Is Bill Gates hell-bent on microchipping us all?
You’re probably familiar with these “theories,” and you could probably add another few to the list.
Conspiracy theories are nothing new, but in this globally connected age, they’re front and center, and on the rise.
Despite their prominence in modern culture, people in conspiracy circles rarely talk about a real, ongoing, evidence-based conspiracy that impacts health on a global scale.
What if I were to tell you that a cabal of mega-rich corporations systematically meddle in law-making processes, directly exacerbating a global pandemic of chronic disease?
These companies pose as the good guys, using shadowy backdoor tactics to harm humanity and make huge profits.
Unlike most other conspiracy theories, this is real and has been going on for decades. And that’s what we’ll cover here: A deadly conspiracy, out in the open and impacting our lives, not just in theory.
Our new app gives you the power to see beyond the marketing
Make smarter, science-backed food choices in seconds. Scan. Score. Reveal the truth. (Available only in the US)
The rise of ultra-processed food
Ultra-processed foods (UPFs) are big news. Although some forms of UPFs aren’t bad for your health, many forms are. Consuming high quantities of risky processed foods is associated with an increased risk of heart disease, obesity, type 2 diabetes, and even dementia.
These products are cheap to manufacture, making them highly profitable. So, to maximize cash flow, global food corporations have flooded the market with them.
Today, in Western countries, well over half of our calories come from these industrially processed foods. They now form an integral part of a “globalized diet” that is ruining human health and the health of the planet.
Thousands of studies have demonstrated these harms. The evidence is in. So, why are these global corporations able to continue to promote these harmful products? It’s complicated and shady, but much of it is in the open.
Here, we’ll cover just some of the ways in which these corporations maintain power over the global food supply, helping keep us confused and sick.
Conflicts of interest in nutrition guidelines
Many countries have government-backed healthy eating guides. In the U.S., there’s the Dietary Guidelines for Americans, and the U.K. has the Eatwell Guide.
Designed and distributed by governments, these guides are trusted. But should they be?
Conflicts of interest significantly influence these healthy eating guides. A report from the Pan American Health Organization (PAHO) explains how:
“There is growing evidence that industries producing ultra-processed food and drinks [...] as well as associated actors often attempt to delay, weaken, distort, and/or impede the development of food and nutrition policies and programs that can effectively contribute to healthier and more sustainable food systems.”
For example, the advisory committee that shaped the 2020–2025 US Dietary Guidelines for Americans was stacked with corporate interests: 95% of committee members (19 out of 20) had at least one connection to the food or pharmaceutical industries.
And more than half of the members were linked to 30 or more industry actors, including food giants like Kellogg, Kraft, General Mills, and Dannon.
Worryingly, in the Pregnancy and Lactation Subcommittee, four out of six committee members had close ties with manufacturers of breastmilk substitutes. It’s impossible not to see this as highly dubious.
Most often, these connections involved receiving funding for research (see below), or being an executive, board member, or consultant for a Big Food company.
An important note on industry-funded research
Nutrition research is vital to improve our understanding of how food affects health.
Often, nutrition scientists struggle to get funding, and only large food corporations have the money to invest.
If a study is industry-funded, this does not automatically mean that it is biased or underhanded. Without these studies, we would know much less about nutrition science.
Lobbying on steroids
Another popular mechanism by which Big Food wields power is lobbying.
According to Transparency International, lobbying is defined as “Any activity carried out to influence a government or institution’s policies and decisions in favor of a specific cause or outcome.”
In short, lobbyists are employed to directly or indirectly persuade lawmakers to make decisions that align with their clients’ wishes. In the case of Big Food, for instance, they might lobby against soda taxes or stricter front-of-pack labelling requirements.
In the U.S., lobbying is firmly embedded in the heart of politics. In other regions, like the U.K. and the European Union, there are stricter laws that limit lobbying or ensure transparency, but it’s still a global phenomenon with enormous influence.
It’s true that lobbying is an integral part of the democratic process: It can help consumer groups or concerned citizens get laws changed or introduced. However, large corporations, with plenty of money sloshing around, benefit much more.
A report from the Access to Nutrition Initiative puts it like this:
“Well-resourced interests can obtain access more easily, frequently, and effectively than other stakeholders, meaning their views have a disproportionate impact on public policy development.”
Constant pestering
Thanks to their deep pockets, Big Food can afford highly skilled lobbyists to pester and coerce lawmakers. “Pester” might seem unfair, but the authors of a report on the challenges of changing nutrition policy explain that:
“Lobbyists were ever present [...] Through their higher capacity and resources, industry lobbyists were able to ‘dog’ legislators every day.”
“You can’t blindside the lobbyists,” explains one legislator. “I had this one bill, we had as many lobbyists in the room as legislators. [...] They get paid and they can watch things a lot more carefully than public interest groups, which are not as well-funded.”
Where money flows
While it’s difficult to directly measure lobbyists' influence, food manufacturers spend huge sums on lobbying each year, so it must benefit them.
In the U.S., in 2024 alone, Big Food spent $29.5 million on lobbying and employed 327 lobbyists.
Of these lobbyists, 65% were “door revolvers,” meaning that they were government officials before they became lobbyists.
With their strong connections within government, they have inside knowledge and an unfair advantage.
A long history of coercion
Lobbying is nothing new. For instance, in the early 1990s, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) withdrew the Eating Right Pyramid guide.
According to the government, this was because it required more evidence and testing.
The withdrawal was more likely due to pressure from the meat and dairy lobbying groups, which didn’t like the way their food categories were displayed in the pyramid.
One year later, the Eating Right Pyramid was relaunched with a new design aligned more closely with the meat and dairy industry’s wishes.
Further back, in the 1970s, pressure from meat lobbying groups forced a change in dietary guidelines.
Initially, the guidelines said:
"Decrease consumption of meat and increase consumption of poultry and fish."
After lobbying pressure, it was changed to be much more confusing:
"Decrease consumption of animal fat, and choose meats, poultry, and fish which will reduce saturated fat intake."
Changing tactics
In the early 2000s, if the food industry was blamed for the rise in obesity or type 2 diabetes, it would simply deny it and push back forcefully.
They would, for instance, attack rigorous scientific evidence that painted their products in a bad light and fund research undermining the status quo.
Big Food also used its political influence to undermine health legislation that it thought might harm its bottom line and set up so-called corporate social responsibility programs designed to position itself as a public health leader.
As one example, Coca-Cola founded the “Movement is Happiness” campaign directly to “marginalize detractors” in the public health sector.
These forceful methods continue, but there has been a noticeable shift more recently, from a combative to a more cooperative approach. Now, they tell us they want to be “part of the solution.”
We don't buy the hype — and neither should you
Our new app reveals what the food labels won't, using data from the world's largest nutrition study run by ZOE. (Only available in the US)
Part of the solution?
The so-called part of the solution strategy has grown in prominence in the past two decades, and boosted the influence of the food industry.
This change is likely due to the overwhelming evidence and growing public awareness that products high in fat, salt, and sugar have adverse health effects.
Big Food has realized it can no longer simply shout “No, they don’t!” That ship has sailed.
The “part of the solution” approach uses a broad range of methods. In an attempt to be perceived as part of the solution, manufacturers may:
Reformulate products or change labeling: For instance, they might release “low-fat” or “reduced-sugar” versions. These may be perceived as healthier, but still be high-risk.
Provide free nutrition education: We’ll talk more about this later, but this tactic makes companies seem caring, but in reality, gives them a platform to promote their products while disseminating biased information.
Promote physical activity: Again, this gives them the appearance of caring about public health and trying to help. In fact, it’s an opportunity to shift the blame of chronic disease onto individuals and away from their products.
These changes do nothing to support the population’s health, but give Big Food a thin veneer of respectability. It makes them look as if they’re part of the solution.
A key aim of this approach is to convince governments that they can regulate themselves.
Instead of new laws, companies favour voluntary pledges and “commitments,” which, further down the line, they can alter, water down, or simply ignore.
They often publish these pledges when new policies are on the horizon. For instance, when a government is considering a sugar tax, Big Food will announce a “commitment” to reducing the sugar content of their products, in hopes that this will sway opinion.
Importantly, Big Food knows that if it can self-regulate, it is more likely to have a seat at the table when new guidelines are drawn up. We’ve already seen their influence in those discussions.
Join the community
Be the first to know about ZOE’s breakthrough research, content from the world’s leading scientists, and more.
A global stranglehold
Big Food already has a substantial hold over the policies of the U.S., U.K., and European Union, but in the hunt for profit, it has extended its reach into middle-income countries.
These regions, which are already struggling with access to food, are ripe for the plucking.
In middle-income countries, cheap, hyperpalatable, highly processed, and harmful foods are causing the “double burden” of malnutrition, where populations face both nutrient deficiency and obesity.
A paper investigating how these corporations make headway in middle-income countries outlines some of the tactics they use. We’ll cover five of them here.
1. The takeover
Big Food companies set up manufacturing and distribution centers in middle-income countries and merge with or take over local competitors. As their network grows, so does their profit.
With increased cash to wave about, their influence over local governments grows.
Aside from flooding supermarkets, large brands also adopt strategies to sell to poorer and rural populations. The authors provide this example from Mexico:
“Coca-Cola provides store-owners the goods necessary to run tiendas, which are informal vendors or family-run general stores, on the condition that the tienda stocks and promotes Coca-Cola’s drinks.”
Similarly, in Brazil, Nestlé employs door-to-door salespeople to sell its “affordable nutrition” products in favelas, the country's poorest regions.
2. Influencing policy
Big Food works to shape local public policies to help it grow and maintain its gigantic profits.
They use lobbying, but also direct financial incentives, like donations and gifts, and indirect incentives, such as the promise of bringing employment to the country.
More sinisterly, large corporations will threaten governments with legal action if they try to implement stricter public health policies.
3. Discredit science
Big Food poisons and distorts science to meet its ends. A paper investigating nutrition conferences in Latin America and the Caribbean demonstrates one way that this can work.
They found that 92 food industry actors sponsored 14 out of the 17 events they reviewed. Abbott and Nestlé were the most frequently involved.
Many of the events had speakers from the International Life Sciences Institute (ILSI), a group founded and funded by large food corporations.
Another example of how science can be weaponised is how Coca-Cola “shaped obesity science and policy in China.”
ILSI set up an office within the Chinese Centre for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), giving them “unparalleled access to government officials.”
China, like most of the rest of the world, has an obesity problem. ILSI — on behalf of Coca-Cola — convinced the government that foods and drinks are not to blame.
Rather, they argued, it’s all about a lack of physical activity.
Using a range of tactics, including funding nutrition conferences, this messaging now permeates China’s public health information on obesity.
In truth, diet and exercise are both important. But this was a huge win for Big Soda’s reputation. China is now Coca-Cola’s third-largest market.
4. Threats
Food companies sometimes use underhanded tactics to target individuals and groups in middle-income countries. The authors of one paper write:
“Big Food actively seeks to reduce the ability and credibility of public health organisations and researchers to advocate for regulation of the UPF industry.”
“This includes threats to sue individual scientists and/or research institutions, monitoring individuals’ movements, and using the media to launch character assassinations.”
5. Smoke screens
Corporations pump funding into public health organizations in middle-income regions to reduce their effectiveness.
Coca-Cola funded programs with the Mexican Federation of Diabetes, which, according to the paper’s authors, “subsequently stopped advocating for health system reform.”
Alternatively, they set up their own initiatives, which are dressed up as public health endeavours but are purely designed to maximize profits and make them look more respectable.
For example, in South Africa, Nestlé set up the so-called Healthier Kids Initiative.
According to the South African government, this initiative aims to “reach over 50% of South African primary school learners,” providing them with products that “meet the nutritional needs of children.”
In reality, this initiative was designed to influence policy-making and help them frame the debate on diet and public health in South Africa, ultimately giving the company more political sway and control over nutrition guidelines.
What should you do?
With its huge profits and disregard for public health, Big Food does not have your best interests at heart.
In most Western countries, the food environment is confusing and difficult to navigate. Food labels often don’t tell us the truth, and nutrition guidelines can be subject to corporate influence.
It’s hard to know where to turn, and it’s almost impossible not to feel enraged by the blatant underhanded techniques used by the food industry.
Eating a whole food diet as much as possible and supporting our local farmers and food businesses, like bakers, is a great place to start.
It’s also why ZOE has designed a free app that can provide instant, science-backed information about the health of any food product. Simply snap a photo, and the app will give you a nutrient breakdown, a score out of 100, and tell you whether the processing it has undergone is risky for your health.
Importantly, our research and app are independent of food industry interests.
It’s only available in the U.S. currently, so if you live there, download it for free now. It will enable you to choose your foods based on evidence, rather than marketing spin and disinformation.
