Plastic pollution. Climate change. Local businesses closing. Rising obesity rates. Popularized processed food. These are major problems that are affecting communities worldwide, and they can all be traced back to Big Food brands. The advancements made in the last fifty years have increased everyday conveniences greatly but have done nothing to help our planet and the people who inhabit it.
This is the first in a series of blog posts derived from my Great Falls High Junior Research Paper, “Big Food’s Reign of Terror.”
There was a time when Coca-Cola came in a ‘borrowed’ glass bottle that was recycled within the company. Now almost every product the multibillion-dollar company sells comes in a plastic bottle that is used once. There was a time when homemade meant homegrown and made from scratch. Now homemade means making cake from a box. Society values convenience, and Big Food brands are catering to it. These brands like to pretend that they have their customers’ best interests in mind. However, Big Food is heavily contributing to climate change, destroying small businesses, and corrupting traditional eating habits.
While Big Food is disrupting the food environment massively, these companies also are allowing food to be more affordable and available to many. They claim the long shelf life helps get food to people who otherwise go unfed. Supporters of Big Food are quick to point out that they are looking to improve the nutritional value of their food. For example, in 2009 KFC in South Africa claimed it would no longer sell products with trans fatty acids, and, in general, Big Food in South Africa is increasing health and wellness initiatives (Igumbor et al). The introduction of Big Food in Brazil has helped many escape poverty, have more balanced diets and decreased malnutrition (Monteiro and Cannon).
Those same supporters turn a blind eye to the effects of the growing amount of processed food in everyday diets. In the U.S, the U.K., and Canada, processed food made by Big Food has been around a long time and has caused rising obesity rates, heart disease, and other chronic diseases.
When big brands buy out or bankrupt small local businesses, many people fail to see the harm it does to not just the community, but also to themselves as consumers. As brands start to build a monopoly, they gain control over what people are buying and eating and society does not even realize it. Food conglomerates say, “they have a lot to learn from their smaller rivals,” and they make it look like they are competing with small businesses, but the fact of the matter is they are destroying them (“Small Steps”).
Big Food is also destroying our planet and heavily contributing to climate change and plastic pollution. Many brands claim that most of the greenhouse gasses are not coming from their factories. The maker of Oreo cookies, Mondelez International, has “measured its greenhouse gas emissions and realized most of it was not coming from factories or trucks,” but instead from deforestation that is clearing land to grow food. They are using a program called Global Forest Watch Pro to track the deforestation created by their suppliers (“Don’t Cut”). Other companies argue that most of the greenhouse gasses are coming from the fertilizer and once again deflect the blame to their suppliers (“Can Anyone”). Keep in mind that these are the same companies that are creating a demand for abundant food that is creating the need to clear more land.
While the efforts some brands are making to increase public health and decrease their contribution to climate change cannot be understated, owners of million-, or even multi-billion-dollar companies, need to do more than just small steps. They have the power and money to eliminate single-use plastic and popularize healthy food rather than processed food. They simply are not doing enough. Consumers need to be educated about what they are buying, eating, and supporting. That means supporting local businesses that care about and have a connection with every customer.
Works Cited
“Can Anyone, Even Walmart, Stem The Heat-Trapping Flood Of Nitrogen On Farms?” All Things Considered, 21 Aug. 2017. Gale In Context: Opposing Viewpoints, link.gale.com/ apps/doc/A501957168/OVIC?u=mtlib_2_906&sid=OVIC&xid=1ad2f84d. Accessed 30 Jan. 2020.
“Don’t Cut Those Trees – Big Food Might Be Watching.” All Things Considered, 31 July 2019. Gale In Context: Opposing Viewpoints, link.gale.com/apps/doc/A596564891/OVIC? u=mtlib_2_906&sid=OVIC&xid=592696c3. Accessed 30 Jan. 2020.
Igumbor, Ehimario U., et al. “‘Big Food,’ the consumer food environment, health, and the policy response in South Africa.” PLoS Medicine, vol. 9, no. 7, 2012. Gale In Context: Opposing Viewpoints, link.gale.com/apps/doc/A299885106/OVIC?u=mtlib_2_906&sid =OVIC&xid=3ea2cd44. Accessed 29 Jan. 2020.Monteiro, Carlos A., and Geoffrey Cannon. “The impact of transnational ‘Big Food’ companies on the South: a view from Brazil.” PLoS Medicine, vol. 9, no. 7, 2012. Gale In Context: Opposing Viewpoints, link.gale.com/apps/doc/A299885105/OVIC?u=mtlib_2_906&sid =OVIC&xid=171adff1. Accessed 31 Jan. 2020.
“Small steps for big food brands.” Australian [National, Australia], 1 Oct. 2018, p. 22. Gale In Context: Opposing Viewpoints, link.gale.com/apps/doc/A556429574/OVIC?u=mtlib_2_9 06&sid=OVIC&xid=e99ae07b. Accessed 28 Jan. 2020.
