A handful of companies control
the food industry
Hundreds
of brands that we find on supermarket shelves give the impression that our
money goes to as many different companies. But that's not the case: a
large majority of these brands are owned by a handful of companies. The following chart provides an overview of where our money
actually goes.
This is a legitimate question: how the fact that these marks are controlled by so few companies is it a bad thing? Is it not just the functional outcome of our economic system?
In fact, we believe that this convergence is bad for various reasons at various levels which are all more or less interrelated. Here are five:
1 - These companies are so big that they have a dangerous political power
This reason is that, somehow, encompasses all the others. Profits from these companies are gargantuan: alone, Nestlé has generated more than $ 37 billion profit in 2010. But that money is rapidly converted into political power. Indeed, in our political system, pressure groups are constantly making efforts to pass or block legislation. In general, most lobbyists are well funded and organized, the more they can afford to have a great influence on the decisions taken at the end. The food industry conducts lobbying activities at all levels: international, national and local. In addition, large amounts are invested by these companies in the referendum campaigns of several political candidates from all parties. It would be naive to believe that these companies invest all that money (in 2010, Kraft has spent half a million dollars in contributions to U.S. political candidates; Nestlé, alone, donated nearly $ 300,000 to Schwarzenegger's campaign California) without expecting anything in return: they wish to have their say on legislation that will or will not be adopted. When asked for and against which projects they will pressure the only criterion that seems to apply in their choice is that of profit. This makes sense and seems reasonable, since these are companies which, after all, have the task of making a profit. However, political pressure for profit is often in conflict with the interests of the population, for which politicians should be able to work without countervailing pressures. It is bad for all the interest of companies comes before that of the population, especially when it comes to important areas such as public health.
The record of the labeling of products containing genetically modified organisms (GMOs) is a good example to date, it is impossible to know if GMOs have a dangerous effect on health or not. Despite this, a majority of products on supermarket shelves already contain GMOs. The U.S. state of Oregon attempted in 2002 to introduce legislation to require companies to disclose which of their products contain GMOs. We do not mean to ban GMOs, or even reduce their use, but only to inform consumers of their presence in the products purchased, and giving them a choice to buy or not. A huge lobby representing the food giants was then formed; with each company contributing to dozens of blows thousands of dollars (PepsiCo has invested $ 127,000, Procter & Gamble, $ 80,000). Finally, the bill is not passed.
Elected officials, who would normally protect the population, are fast becoming powerless, especially if their election depends on funds advanced by these same companies. This becomes an indirect form and legal corruption, and it is easy to believe that if it were possible, these multinationals would use more direct means. Unilever has admitted to the New York Times for giving bribes, kickbacks, or "ease of payments" against members of governments in some developing countries. Unilever said they did not encourage such practices, but tolerate it when a "local custom". In other words: if politicians are corruptible in place and are already receiving bribes, kickbacks, as well enjoy it!
2 - Health Impacts
this makes sense: our health is largely by the food we comsommons; it is from them that eventually constituting our bodies. To the extent that a vast majority of foods we buy are provided by a very small number of companies, each of them has a huge part to play on our health, which is partly in their hands. Contrary to what they can say well through various advertisements, our health is not part of their genuine concern, quite the contrary.
In 2005, almost all the multinational food companies have come together to put pressure on the French government, which was preparing to pass a law banning vending sodas and snacks like "junk food" in schools, and to alter the kind of publicity surrounding the food unhealthy. Much of the project had to be abandoned due to pressure from the food industry.
Worse, despite studies of the World Health Organization and UNICEF show that the use of a substitute for breast milk to feed babies contributes to the deaths of 1.5 million children annually in developing countries underdeveloped. Nestlé, the largest manufacturer of breast milk substitutes in the world, openly promotes the choice of using substitutes even if the mother is able to breastfeed. They even fund medical clinics in underdeveloped countries who agree to promote their substitutes breast milk. These practices are directly responsible for the death or poor health of millions of children; an international boycott of Nestle has also been ongoing since the 80's because of this controversy.
3 - Impacts on the Economy
economically, the limited number of companies in the food market puts us in an oligopoly. Two major consequences follow from this:
First, a market controlled by a small number of companies provides "entry barriers", that is to say that any new company that tries to enter this market will life difficult if not impossible. For example, if a new producer is lucky enough that her local supermarket has agreed to sell its product, it is often on almost inaccessible shelves that its product will be placed, which encourages very few people buy it because of Indeed, in conspicuous places are reserved for multinationals, who pay dearly for the privilege. A small producer simply does not have the budget to compete with them. Moreover, people are used to mark the big companies, and have the reflex to immediately buy these brands (who also receive support massive advertising), which makes the competition much more difficult with them. And if a producer was able to finally break into the market with a product that interests people, it is highly likely to be quickly acquired by a multinational and its brand will become another of the hundreds that 'they already have. All this prevents healthy competition in the market.
Second, an oligopoly often leads to a cartel, i.e. a small group of companies fixed prices at a higher amount than the market, to increase their profits at the expense of consumers. This practice is generally illegal and falls under the collusion, but that does not prevent companies from entering prostitution. In April 2011, Procter & Gamble had to pay 211 million euro fine after being convicted of a cartel to fix prices in Europe with Unilever and Henkel. Henkel, the smallest company of the three (and one that took advantage of the least), was not penalized, for it is she who has denounced the cartel authorities.
4 - Environmental Impacts
Companies that control the food industry have, in general, not an environmental issue rosy. In 2001, Kraft decided to invest heavily in the business of lobbying the Bush administration to campaign against the Kyoto Protocol. In China, PepsiCo and Nestle have been convicted for pollution of waterways. Unilever, meanwhile, 7.4 tons of illegally dumped waste contaminated with mercury at the entrance to the forest Pambar Shola in India, right next to a city with high population density. Unilever was forced to close this plant mercury for this reason. It's also no surprise that Procter & Gamble has lobbied to weaken environmental laws European projects in the area of chemicals. Because of pressure from P & G, the final legislation passed in 2003 by the European Parliament protects only very few citizens and the environment of toxic substances in household products. This "militant" anti-environmentalist whose proofs are these companies have one goal: to ensure that production is the cheapest possible in the short term. Damage in the longer term to the overall population of our planet, including that of animals, has no weight, but he look good.
But the most significant impact that these companies have on the environment may be connected to the massive use of palm oil in their food. Indeed, the devastating impacts (large-scale deforestation, relocation of local communities leading to violent situations, extinction of animal species, emission of greenhouse gases) industry of palm oil have been revealed in recent years, but palm oil is still used extensively in a variety of processed products, mainly because of its cheapness and the fact that it represents an alternative (equally unhealthy) to trans fats.
5 - Human Impacts
The reputation of several multinationals about the working conditions they impose abroad is well established. Over the years, companies operating in various fields have been in the spotlight, the center of several scandals. The fact that the food industry also behaves in this way will therefore probably not surprising. Despite this, the severity of the actions of some of these companies may surprise many.
In 2005, Nestlé has been pursued by the ILRF (International Labor Right Fund) for child trafficking. These children are brought into Ivory Coast from surrounding countries to work on cocoa plantations used by the company. Despite several warnings at the point of Nestlé to inform them of these practices, Nestlé has never really reacted on the issue before continuing. Another lawsuit was launched in the U.S., where Nestlé is accused of complicity in slavery, abduction and torture of children in several countries in West Africa. Not to mention the murder of a union leader in Colombia. He had publicly denounced a sneaky strategy that allowed Nestlé to change the labeling of imported milk powder to it seems to be a local product. The powder, often past due, was imported from neighboring countries at a discount. The complaint led to a police investigation which confirmed the facts and reflects Nestlé to court to have undermined public health. Several other murders have mysteriously struck workers who filed complaints against Nestle. But this kind of practice is not the monopoly of Nestlé: the case of Coca-Cola is not any better.
How to react?
Hard not to feel helpless in the face of multinationals have budgets too immense, a great political influence and who can consistently afford the best lawyers to fight any further. But the exorbitant revenues of these companies, which maintain these practices, does not grow on trees ... they come from our pockets! It is we who give them when every week we buy hundreds of products that we offer at the supermarket. Food is a huge market: each of us must eat to stay alive, and at rehearsal! Our visits to the supermarket are regular and represent the sum, much of our budgets. It would be wrong to believe that the impact that each of us has on this industry is minimal. Do the exercise, and calculate how much money you spend on groceries per year. Better yet, try out at your next visit, what percentage of the products you buy are sold by a few multinationals: you can calculate approximately how much money you give them. The result may be surprisingly high. So even if we cut one of his contributions, the impact will be several thousand dollars!
Two obstacles arise, however:
- It is difficult to avoid products sold by the handful of companies. They are everywhere, and sometimes it may seem that no alternative is offered: if you do not buy the product from Nestle, then you buy one Kraft or PepsiCo. But there are alternatives, just search for them. They sometimes require extra effort, especially the effort to do a little research on the origin of the products we choose to buy (and the company that manufactures them). This effort is seen at the individual level, however, rewarded by the consciousness of being a good choice, and collectively with money invested elsewhere in this oligopolistic system.
- The brands owned by these companies are part of our lives long, they are everywhere. We're used to, sometimes attached. Advertising encourages us to constantly buy them. Very often, it is very difficult to imagine the ban all of our lives, suddenly and completely change our habits in a jiffy, it just is not realistic.
But these obstacles should not stop us! First, it may be convenient to print our great graphic and drag it to the store to make the diagnosis of our habits, but also to look at the products available that do not belong to these companies: one becomes aware possible alternatives. Then you can try the products available to us as an alternative, perhaps more than we will appeal, and our habits will be more easily changed. It can also be profitable to try to change our habits one by one: over time, our impact will grow more and more and we will not also destabilized. This approach is at least more realistic than a sudden boycott and inflexible, even if it is ideally desirable.
No comments:
Post a Comment